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.

Hi All

Not going to lie i'm fairly new to hobby only really played the fifth, had a passing interest in the hobby back in the early 90's but there is part of me that thinks we as 40k hobbyists are doing it wrong.

There seem to be a huge empathses on being competitive within the hobby but at the same time the majority of people admit the codex's are not balanced, how can a truley competetive gaming system exist if you start at a disadvantage or advantage based on the side you are.

I got into the hobby because of fluff and there is part of me that feels that this is where are focus as gamers should be, and to an extent it seems to be where GW want the game to focus as well.

The expansions to the game (planet strike, cities of death, battle missions & planetary empires) all seem to be focused in creating a more narrative game but they seem to be barely played. The BRB suggests linking missions and white dwarf often (well used to not read it for a while) had battle reports focused around a strong narrative even to the point of having a points inbalance. Even a lot of Dakka's battle reports attempt the make a story out of random games.

Don't get me wrong I love being able to turn up at my club and just play a game but I do ache for a more involved experince. Are we trying to shoe horn a narrative game into a competive system?

It's an online thing mostly. If you're a dedicated enough player to be a tournament gamer, there's a very good chance you're spending time on forums to research the most efficient builds and talk about what's what.

GW thinks of 40k as a beer and pretzels game (it is) and not a competitive one. They're selling "The Hobby" as a whole, which is gaming, painting, telling stories through the games, and so on. It is a game with lots of potential for narrative and fluff, and I personally prefer it to be played that way.

A lot of the complaints are that GW isn't making concessions for tournament players, which I feel they should. While I'm not a super competitive or frequent tournament player, they should try and appeal to everyone in their playerbase.

Brother SRM wrote:
GW thinks of 40k as a beer and pretzels game (it is) and not a competitive one. They're selling "The Hobby" as a whole, which is gaming, painting, telling stories through the games, and so on. It is a game with lots of potential for narrative and fluff, and I personally prefer it to be played that way.

I had a very long spiel typed up and checked to see what other people posted first to see if mine was redundant and this is much simpler and pretty much on the money. If you want to play narrative based games or campaigns have some friends and plan them out before hand, perhaps coming up with a story to make the players even more invested in the battle.

My club plays all sorts of miniature games, mostly historicals. When we play 40K or WHB, we always go the linked battle route and have characters that can improve throughout a campaign. Sort of a mix of role-play and table top gaming.

Individual games lost their luster many, many years ago for most of us. Largely due to our love of the fluff and the inconsistencies between the table and the books. This emphasis on Campaigns really brought back the love in a big way.

I realize this is something most fans are prevented from experiencing, however.

you guys are probably right, i guess i might just be a beer and pretzel player in a red bull and chips world.

The club I run isn't very competetive but I find myself having to take at least as semi competive list every time. other players jsut never really seem interested in doing anything with a strong narrative, think it might be why i've found myself enjoying dark heresey.

SpankHammer III wrote:you guys are probably right, i guess i might just be a beer and pretzel player in a red bull and chips world.

The club I run isn't very competetive but I find myself having to take at least as semi competive list every time. other players jsut never really seem interested in doing anything with a strong narrative, think it might be why i've found myself enjoying dark heresey.

Do the people you play Dark Heresy with also play TT? If they do and aren't competitive, or don't at all, maybe try to get them into, small battles with only 500 point battles can still be very fun and allows for individual models to seem more unique and allow for one to build a story behind each one. Heck you could even try to make it a sort of war movie like situation, a platoon of IG (given boosted stats to represent plot armour) has to fight through an entire war against some enemy, over time getting boosted stats and maybe new equipment, as well as suffering casualties. But yeah, if you prefer story and can't find anyone to play TT with RPGs are probably a better bet, although I would suggest you don't sell your army because the gaming scene can change a lot between edition changes and simply as time goes by your local gaming scene will likely change. Also you will only get like 1/5th the price you paid for a box of guardsmen if you resell them.

SpankHammer III wrote:There seem to be a huge empathses on being competitive within the hobby but at the same time the majority of people admit the codex's are not balanced

To be fair, most players of a game in which there is competition are competitive. Most players also can't be bothered to really learn how the game works, and when they lose, blame the system itself.

If you just lost a game against GK, odds are that you're a bad player or had bad dice, not that the game itself is at fault. That's the lazy, whiner's way out, and most people are lazy...

SpankHammer III wrote: how can a truley competetive gaming system exist if you start at a disadvantage or advantage based on the side you are.

This actually misses it, I think. The real question is how can you be truly competitive in a system where the results of your actions are much more than not determined by rolling dice? No amount of player skill will win you a game if you can't roll above a 2, and it would be pretty difficult to lose a game if you never rolled worse than a 4 (except on Ld checks), or in the case of a power armor army, less than a 3.

It's the eternal conundrum of 40k. On the one hand, it's a competitive game with a winner and a loser and game balance and player skill. On the other hand, it's a glorified game of craps or roulette where the player gets some control over the odds he plays. So long as you can win a game of 40k, there will always be competition. So long as the mechanic of the game is dice, it can't be a serious medium for competition.