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.

Yeah, you seem to be right Horst. I am not out to ruin your fun, I just found the discussion of ways to get around listbuilding interesting. I would like an event like that, I think it would be a nice change of pace.

The problem isn't listbuilding.

The problem is the huge sunk-cost feeling that many players go through when they buy into a faction before learning that, like MtG Standard, there is indeed an effectively, rigidly-enforced selection of viable units at the competitive level.

 jeff white wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 auticus wrote:

My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.

There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.

So, that means that it shouldn't be the case...?
Is this what they call an "is... ought..." fallacy?

Not at all. The demand for iterative development is very much driven by the need and desire to improve. I don't think you'll find a competitive player out there that doesn't want to see a focus on making changes that expand the pool of competitive options. At the same time, the point of these things is to have fun and its a lot easier to have fun if you focus on the game as it exists. Ultimately we don't really control what changes and when, and while wishlisting improvements certainly makes sense, it shouldn't come at the cost of appreciating everything that does work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slave.entity wrote:

I suspect the biggest limiting factor in having great unit representation for the entire catalog is that it is simply not cost effective for GW to spend man-hours balancing all of those units.

It's actually harder than that. Ultimately the issue is that for the most part, every unit in 40k is competing for the same points (HQs and Troops have some rules that make them a premium purchase) and fulfilling the same role. Tacs, Terms, Intercessors, even Dreadnoughts and Land Raiders exist to output a certain number of shots while dying after failing a certain number of rolls and maybe punch some things if that happens. Even if the math efficiency per point is the same for all of them, factors outside of that makes one of them slightly better than the others and the only one taken. Little things like how they degrade over the course of the game or how they're affected by control effects. Sometimes its just that the meta has a lot of weapons that hurt more one than the other. That's why its not often the most overpowered thing that dominates the meta in a game, but the thing that plays best into that thing.

 LunarSol wrote:

 jeff white wrote:


So, that means that it shouldn't be the case...?
Is this what they call an "is... ought..." fallacy?

Not at all. The demand for iterative development is very much driven by the need and desire to improve. I don't think you'll find a competitive player out there that doesn't want to see a focus on making changes that expand the pool of competitive options. At the same time, the point of these things is to have fun and its a lot easier to have fun if you focus on the game as it exists. Ultimately we don't really control what changes and when, and while wishlisting improvements certainly makes sense, it shouldn't come at the cost of appreciating everything that does work.

Ummm, I think that the fallacy remains fallacious.

And, focusing on the game as it exists and so on recalls my earlier posts about cognitive styles.

"Expand the pool of competitive options"? Unless those include not emphasizing listbuilding super-duper combo-maxing over other ways to game?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Ultimately the issue is that for the most part, every unit in 40k is competing for the same points (HQs and Troops have some rules that make them a premium purchase) and fulfilling the same role. Tacs, Terms, Intercessors, even Dreadnoughts and Land Raiders exist to output a certain number of shots while dying after failing a certain number of rolls and maybe punch some things if that happens. Even if the math efficiency per point is the same for all of them, factors outside of that makes one of them slightly better than the others and the only one taken. Little things like how they degrade over the course of the game or how they're affected by control effects. Sometimes its just that the meta has a lot of weapons that hurt more one than the other. That's why its not often the most overpowered thing that dominates the meta in a game, but the thing that plays best into that thing.

See, this is what doesn't look like fun, and doesn't look like a game, but more like counting cards in poker or literally stacking the deck in CCGs, this is the attitude that is frankly exclusionary of others, because in its hyper-optimization for points efficient probabilities, every other way to meet at the table ends in a loss, and a lecture about optimal probabilities rather than a talk about strategy, tactics, battlefield roles and mad turns of event.

You see, in so many words, without actually using the words, you are telling everyone else that they don't play the game correctly, because if they did then they could be competitive, and win, like you~
see, it is a sort of tyranny of the zealous.

 Horst wrote:
No, I haven't. I have played competitive 40k though, in 5th edition, 6th edition, and 8th edition. It's been about "list building" for each of those editions. As long as I've known it, it's been this way.

With respect, This strikes me as having more than a pinch of confirmation bias than anything else. A self-confessed competitive/tournament player who has played competitive games from 4th onwards will of course be exposed heavily to the mentality of 'list-building-for-advantage'. And will know only this. It's fair to say that the competitive game has always been about list building (specifically list building for advantage. This I said a different beast to list building. Narrative player list build too, just differently), but not everyone plays this game. You (and I!) don't necessarily get a view of 'the big picture'. Like the old story of ten blind men trying to describe an elephant. In my experience for example, Tournament play has always been more of a minority in the hobby, over all. And that is not to dismiss it at all. For years I played tournaments exclusively. That said, in comparison, A narrative gamer who plays the club circuit or in garages through fourth ed onwards will have a totally different experience to you, and in my experience, both subsets rarely mix. And in my experience, there are a lot more 'basement/garage' gamers than flgs/store gamers will see.

 Horst wrote:
Why would it be changed, why SHOULD it be changed, when it's obviously got a large (and growing) fan base? 40k tournaments are exploding in popularity, they're everywhere. It confirms that people want this style.

Does it?

Again, this is more than a little of confirmation bias. In my experience, gw's surge has a lot more to do with stellar models, better communications and media savvy, better ease-of-entry, the explosive popularity of boxed games and return of specialist games, as well as the acknowledgement of 'three ways to play'. Everyone I know has a 40k project on the go, and only a minority's of them are serious tournament players. I've spent more On gw stuff in the last 18 months than in the last ten years, and I haven't got within poking range of a tournament. Tournaments will of course get a boost from 40ks resurgent popularity, and I'm glad they are, but are they driving the surge or is it a case of a rising tide lifts all boats? Are there that many (new) tournament players, or are the same people just playing more? Is it a subset of all the new players that are contributing to the rise in tournaments? Is it growing in spite of itself? Tournament play has always been a minority element of this hobby on the whole. Are you, a self confessed tournament player from 4th ed, extensively familiar (or even vaguely familiar) with the garage/club scene in order to gauge its growt/presence in relation to gw's success? Who knows. That scene tends to be quiet and somewhat invisible - for all we know, it could hypothetically have ten times the players involved as tournaments. And i doñt say this to be crude. Please, don't take it that way at all.

With respect, 'more tournament games' proves nothing beyond there are more tournaments. Though As I said, I am happy for the competitives that their scene is bigger too.

As to why would it be changed and why should it be changed. Simple. Growth. Variety. Tournaments/pick up play should not be seen as the default or root from which all else Springs. Warmachine/hordes, a game I truly love, suffered greatly from an overexposure to 'one way to play' as determined by the community that played it. (To be fair. Pp have made some truly ham fisted decisions too, but the scene didn't really have a 'casual' base, and when the competitive got fed up and left, there was little left) Other approaches, and other types of wargaming should also be encouraged, and explored. And at the end of the day, just Because while some people may like them, plenty more are arguably turned off by them- as has been shown in this thread.

List building is a skill, but some people want the game to be about what you actually do on the board, as opposed to the list you bring and winning before you turn up. They are not wrong either. Personally, as a narrative playerI like 'matching lists' to a theme/scenario, rather than blind, independent list-building-for-advantage. And the forces we would field would be more 'traditional' company based builds rather than super-combos. Essentially, a collaborative approach generally not focused on list building for advantage. An I find it to be a far more intriguing test of skill to 'do the best you can, with what you have to hand, with often sub par units or limited amounts of 'the good stuff'' rather than use a super list as a bit of a crutch. Also gives me an excuse to field everything, and match relatively rather than just focus on the top dozen tournament builds. My opinion, of course. Ymmv.

People are not wrong for feeling this way, Or for feeling that tournament play, and talk about tournament play sucks all the oxygen out of the room and doesn't let other types of gaming happen - gamers are very conservative- once you have a 'default', you rarely see people even considering stepping out of bounds or exploring a game. Creativity ultimately dries up. It's a slow death. I've said it before - there is a viable niche for pick up games and tournaments, and 'pragmatic' gsming. But a lot of things get sacrificed on that altar to make it happen, and I don't consider it to be worth it all of the time.

Cheers.

Honestly GW has been doing well lately partially because they are making decent efforts to support all styles of play, competitive, casual, and narrative included.

Rules-wise it looks like they're aiming to make all the design trade-offs necessary to cater to all types of players. This means that not every player type will be 100% pleased and that's certainly a risk. What makes a game better for a competitive audience might make it worse for a casual audience, and vice versa.

But if they get it right their prize is capturing a much larger audience than catering exclusively to competitive, or exclusively casual, etc.

Based on the recent growth in popularity... it seems to be working?

 LunarSol wrote:

 auticus wrote:

My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.

There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.

I play and have played a ton of games and i can say that having been a player for over 30 years total, ive only ever had this problem with gw games.

To this day 40k and aos are the only games where we have to socially engineer our groups in such a way to avoid having to powerlist to have a good game.

Ive also been doing game design since the late 1990s and gw games are the only games with this issue to this degree largely because they are the largest listbuilding focused games.

You dont have as bad of problems in other games because most other games dont design games dpecifically to attract listbuilding.

Listbuilding requires bad balance because it requires optimal choices, and it requires garbage. The tighter the balance, the less of an impact listbuilding has.

The more 2000 pts means 2000 pts the less of an influence a powerlist has.

I have been involved in designing games where the chief complaint from players was that our work was “boring” because their list didnt matter as much as playing did. To include azyr comp, one of the most used fan comps of aos before gw gave that game points again. Gw makes these disparities intentionally to appeal to listbuilding intentionally. It is a bugbear i struggle with as a designer because i feel gameplay should matter a lot more.

I feel it is the commercially successful model in an era dominated by ccg mechanics and deckbuilding so cant fault them for following the money, but it certainly props up the schism between the folks who want a wargame. For right now, sucks to be us.

The lack of list building is one of the things (among many others) that killed warmachine with mk3. The introduction of all but mandatory themes meant that lists basically wrote themselves. I used to spend hours and hours a week on war room building lists and thinking about what I was going to play the next time I had a chance. It's a big part of the game for many people since actually playing the game tends to be a small percentage of your actual hobby time.

Sqorgar wrote: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.

I can just imagine someone walking into a store to play a pick up game and saying to their opponent "Sorry, is it ok if I start with 10 victory points and give this unit of Orcs frenzy and stubborn, because I like playing with them?". Your solution to the problem of the lack of a semblance of balance is to essentially 'create your edition', which is not going to go down well outside of your core group of friends.

auticus wrote:Terrain has always been one of those things that people both don't want to invest in / building, and don't like impacting their game

Which I've always found odd, considering how much varied terrain you can create with actually very little effort and considering how important terrain is in a typical (good) strategy/tactics game.

how important terrain is in a typical (good) strategy/tactics game

The crucible of my problems with 40k.

It is not a game about strategy and tactics first and foremost. And the people that it appeals to are not as concerned about those things because of that.

 jeff white wrote:

See, this is what doesn't look like fun, and doesn't look like a game, but more like counting cards in poker or literally stacking the deck in CCGs, this is the attitude that is frankly exclusionary of others, because in its hyper-optimization for points efficient probabilities, every other way to meet at the table ends in a loss, and a lecture about optimal probabilities rather than a talk about strategy, tactics, battlefield roles and mad turns of event.

You see, in so many words, without actually using the words, you are telling everyone else that they don't play the game correctly, because if they did then they could be competitive, and win, like you~
see, it is a sort of tyranny of the zealous.

I just see it as being realistic. It's not about telling people how to play the game; its about recognizing how the game plays. Game engines are a lot like physics; interconnected systems that govern how different things interact that can largely be defined with math. Competitive play is generally just how the game works, or doesn't if that's the case, but thinking it should be different doesn't change what happens when you actually get to the table.

Part of it is just that people are asking about actually getting to the table. If you've got your optimized points against optimized points, games do depend on strategy, tactics and more than a little luck. To no small degree, the reason people enjoy aiming for top end competition simply because in a tournament, its a good way to get into games that test those factors. You might get some easy wins, but sooner or later, your list isn't going to be enough and you start to see the kind of things people want from every encounter.

 slave.entity wrote:
The problem isn't listbuilding.

The problem is the huge sunk-cost feeling that many players go through when they buy into a faction before learning that, like MtG Standard, there is indeed an effectively, rigidly-enforced selection of viable units at the competitive level.

The thing with magic is, anything that is not good. Is also far cheaper to play, or is a limited designed card. The opportunity cost is far lower, as well as a few other advantages like not needing to paint your deck.

 Horst wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

...afraid that someone might remove
the "super-combo CP farming win-button"(tm) from the game mechanics.

Tell me, which list is that? Because your comment just comes off to me as ignorant of the tournament scene. What list exactly is it that is a "super-combo CP farming win-button"?

Name me one list that is absolutely unstoppable in 8th edition, and I'll shut up and accept that you are right. Every list out there has a counter, no list is a "win button".

Some lists are "lose buttons" though, where no matter how you play them you're gonna get stomped. That's to be expected though. There are a solid 10-15 "good" style lists that will do well at any given tournament though, and in each of those there are variations you can customize to base on your playstyle. Honestly your comments come off as someone who plays their fluffy space marines, and doesn't want to be bothered to change up what he brings against newer style 8th edition lists to win.

Shifting goalposts wins you no arguments. There have been problem lists in 40k. GW has been willing to balance them out, but the statistics don't like. I suspect eldar flyers will be around 60ish win percentage, and ynnari lists were. And if you know about game balance, a 60 percent winrate is fething bad for competitive games. List building should involve studying the meta, knowing matchups, and crafting a list for it. Not crafting a list and knowing you can beat almost any other list with it because it is just better.

Now where I stand is that I don't think you can fix it. You can run about and wack down every list that appears and overperforms, but that will just bring the next one out because the way the game inherently values the ability to stack up super murder units and remove models before they get to act, with far fewer units able to pull off near invulnerability. The first two turns almost inevitably involves both sides picking up most of their models (if this is a top tournament game. If its a meta list punching down, one side will be removing all their models) before things like objective grabbing, cost benefit trades, and other clever plays come out because all the over performing murder units have mutually annihilated.

But I also don't begrudge the people who enjoy top tournament play or any success they win. I've moved on to games that I feel have tighter core balance, but they don't have the following. If you like playing competitive 40k and you are even finding success with it, more power to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:
The problem isn't listbuilding.

The problem is the huge sunk-cost feeling that many players go through when they buy into a faction before learning that, like MtG Standard, there is indeed an effectively, rigidly-enforced selection of viable units at the competitive level.

The thing with magic is, anything that is not good. Is also far cheaper to play, or is a limited designed card. The opportunity cost is far lower, as well as a few other advantages like not needing to paint your deck.

MTG isn't actually fantastically cheaper at the competitive level, the deck cycles for most competitive formats every three months and you have to heavy invest in the next set to grab all the cards required. If you are chasing the MTG tourney meta, you are buying a lot of gak regularly. And as much as GW wants you to do the same for 40k, there's a limit to their ability to churn. The top competitive people all have huge collections and trade freely with each other and are pretty much set for getting their hands on most models for little investment.

 LunarSol wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

See, this is what doesn't look like fun, and doesn't look like a game, but more like counting cards in poker or literally stacking the deck in CCGs, this is the attitude that is frankly exclusionary of others, because in its hyper-optimization for points efficient probabilities, every other way to meet at the table ends in a loss, and a lecture about optimal probabilities rather than a talk about strategy, tactics, battlefield roles and mad turns of event.

You see, in so many words, without actually using the words, you are telling everyone else that they don't play the game correctly, because if they did then they could be competitive, and win, like you~
see, it is a sort of tyranny of the zealous.

I just see it as being realistic. It's not about telling people how to play the game; its about recognizing how the game plays. Game engines are a lot like physics; interconnected systems that govern how different things interact that can largely be defined with math. Competitive play is generally just how the game works, or doesn't if that's the case, but thinking it should be different doesn't change what happens when you actually get to the table.
Part of it is just that people are asking about actually getting to the table. If you've got your optimized points against optimized points, games do depend on strategy, tactics and more than a little luck. To no small degree, the reason people enjoy aiming for top end competition simply because in a tournament, its a good way to get into games that test those factors. You might get some easy wins, but sooner or later, your list isn't going to be enough and you start to see the kind of things people want from every encounter.

It might be realistic but this is exactly the sort of thing that leads to my "math hammer is the devil" rant. Because this does NOT look like fun. It looks like boiling everything down to numbers, and then unequivocally stating that X is bad so there are zero reasons to ever take X unless you're a masochist (or scrub, or CAAC, or whatever term we want to use) and will defend X to the death because you just want to make it work, while everyone else will ignore X because "the numbers" say X is bad. There's no discussion of how to make X work (this is more the fault of the system though; other wargames usually have ways to make things work somehow) just X sucks take Y instead. Which is feth all helpful to someone who likes X and wanted to make it work to be told "Nope, there is no way to do that. You chose poorly, buy something else and research this time so you don't make this mistake again"

When GW pitches the game as being a spectacle and how you should pick armies/units/lists based on what looks good, or what jumps out as thematic to you, or basically anything other than "The number-crunching says this is good", then while it's not "wrong" seeing that approach to the game looks like it's flying in the face of everything the game is presented to be about. Basically, it's that math hammer denigrates the game to not caring about anything EXCEPT mathematical efficiency. Sure, that's a valid way to play. I totally get some people enjoy analyzing everything in exquisite detail to find the "best". But, and I sound like a crotchety old man here I know, god damn it, that approach FEELS like it's wrong.

Fair point there Mr Wayne

I think part of it is the sheer ubiquitous presence of 40k, and whilst you can't be having fun wrong, I've long maintained you can be playing the wrong game, but if 40k is the only game in town you're kind of stuffed (as others have mention the uphill thanlkess task trying to get other not 40k games up and running can be)

Once, in an age barely remembered, there was no 40k and wee Turnip and his nerd amigos were RPG players. where basically the rules came secondary to spinning a tale and resolving the surprise sword and wand based interactions

Then 40k rumbled in and some of the herd picked it and some didn't, but it was always a numbers game to us with the RPG's being our narrative fix

Unsurprisingly I blame GW in part as they really don't seem to know what the game is actually meant to be, other than the model selling juggernaut its become

I think we give GW too much credit when we say they don't know what they want it to be.

I think they have the magic the gathering rules development paradigm pinned to the wall in the ivory tower.

They are trying to make a game that has great narrative, great models, and also attracts numbers crunching spike personalities as well and their game design reflects that.

Then they say "well you don't have to play like spike plays, if you like narrative then buy the models that forge your narrative".

Which is true!

And the community echoes that!

And thats also true! And fine.

Except when spike bleeds into casual play. No one likes to get stomped by spike because they took a narrative list. So the spike way to play becomes slowly a thing in pretty much every group I've ever played in until its the only game in town.

And then you have people venting their frustration, both in person and on forums. And the schism we see between spike and casual and have seen since internet forums were a thing becomes the spectacle instead of the game because a lot of people bought into whfb, aos, and 40k because of the spectacle and the narrative, not the number crunching, but the number crunching is in many places across the globe the only way to play. Its just you don't get told that at the gate, you find out later after you've spent $500 - $1000 and hundreds of hours of time painting that you need to be rocking adepticon list B for your faction or else you will get erased by turn 2, your bad for not researching the game, go git gud (and here again, I was the spike for about a decade and i did the travel to GTs across the US and told people to git gud for not researching so I've been on both sides of the fence)

Because with 40k, and AOS, and WHFB before it, and any GW game really, you must be good at socially engineering if you want to play the game in anyway other than as a numbers crunching exercise.

And typically GW games are the only game in town for a lot of people because no one wants to buy in to other systems that have few players.

Its a nuclear fission cycle feeding itself.

I would argue the issue isn't even "Spike" bleeding into casual play, it's that the game isn't designed remotely well enough that there isn't a grand canyon's worth of a gap between "Spike" and the rest (I forget the MTG terms. Jimmy? Timmy? No wait I think that's South Park). If the gap wasn't huge, then Spike would have an advantage because he number crunches (as he should) but it wouldn't be as lopsided as you find. Honestly, 40k fits David Sirlin's concept of a "degenerate" game in that it can't properly support the mindset. The choices are too obvious in most cases, and too extreme when used even in small doses.

David Sirlin, Playing to Win wrote:
Some games don't hold up to high-level play. That's sloppy design in my opinion. A solid game holds up to experts playing it as hard as they can against each other. That way, the game can be fun for beginners and experts.

When a game doesn't hold up to expert play, it's degenerate in some way. There's only one good move or one good character, or one good strategy, or something like that. The game offers what appears to be a lot of fun options, but you don't actually get to do those fun options against experts, even if you are an expert too. So for this type of game, playing to win really will make it less fun, but that's not a problem with the players who are doing their best; it's a problem with the game. I wouldn't fault players here or complain to them that they are playing in a boring way. I'd complain to the game developer or play a different game.

Emphasis mine. I would argue that almost, if not exactly, 100% describes 40k to a tee (AOS too). A well-designed game would appeal to Spike who wants to number crunch and find all the min/maxed wombo-combos, but also be able to appeal to Jim (making up my own names here) who wants to build a themed force around the Blood Angels 5th company that fought in the Battle of Omicron Persei IX, with every model named and customized, and Dwight who just likes certain models and wants to build an army based around what he finds is cool and not just get his teeth kicked in every game he plays because sucks for him, the models he likes aren't very good on the table.

THAT is the problem. 40k pretends it can appeal to all three of those personalities, but it really can't. That's why you see the Spike types dominate outside of the PR-laden WHC articles and the small pockets of narrative gaming. Because when you have to house rule or tack on a bunch of extra stuff, or worse restrict yourself because even remotely trying to be like Spike will throw the game off the rails, there's a huge problem.

40k definitely does have some design issues, because even if you take 2 absolutely casual players who play their favorite units, and do zero math on trying to figure out the best combos, the game is horribly imbalanced. A new player who picks up Knights is going to utterly trash a new player who picks up space marines. A new player who picks up Eldar will utterly trash a new player who picks up grey knights. If both players are trying to absolutely maximize their armies, the imbalance IMO actually shrinks, because they both understand what is possible and try to plan around it with their list.

Honestly, people who take tournament lists to play against casual players ARE a problem, and those guys are jerks. I live in a city with a large casual gamer group... I have never once played my tournament list against them. I'll bring my mono-codex Guard list, and generally have a fun time (except the one guy who asked for a game and didn't tell me he was bringing Grey Knights, so I didn't hobble my list hard enough to not massacre him). People who take high powered tournament lists to smash casuals at their LGS are a different issue entirely from competitive gamers, because they're both ruining the fun for others and not doing anything constructive themselves. This is a situation though where I think it's on the local group to not tolerate that crap. If you see a guy bringing his ITC Knight Soup list to narrative games, then refuse to play him. If you see a new player looking for a game, warn him about that guy. Don't let that behavior slide.

Anyone who is ACTUALLY competitive, and not just trying to stomp noobs, would generally want to either play a fun narrative game with casual gamers just to play 40k, or spend time painting models for his tournament list. Stomping people with a tournament list when they don't want that style of game it is actually detrimental to the guy with the tournament list, since he's just picking up bad habits.

We have a handful of guys that only ever take tournament lists regardless of what type of game they are playing.

Because to them all games should be ultra competitive, no matter where they are played and to them in their mind they are properly preparing their opponents to play at that level by beating the garbage units off the table to encourage them to go buy better units to be better players.

Which is where I say it bleeds into all forms of play where I am.

Unfortunately it sounds like you're dealing with some rather toxic players then, that are just ruining the fun for everyone. Do you have other guys that don't play tournament lists? I'd try to talk to them, and maybe convince them to just stop playing against those guys who bring tournament lists. Maybe they'll get the message if people refuse to play them.

I guess it also depends what you mean by "tournament" lists. If they're bringing something like mono codex Astra Militarum, but using 3 Tank Commanders instead of 3 Leman Russ, that isn't really a tournament list. If they're bringing Astra Militarum with Blood Angels allies and some Assassins, that's a different matter entirely.

I'm talking about lists that they take to the ATC, Adepticon, LVO, etc.

Out of curiosity, are they actually tournament players?

If you check https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/, do their names appear on the overall rankings? Are they actually ranked? Or are they just trying to smash casual players to make up for the fact that they can't do well at tournaments? Because it sounds like they're trying to compensate for something with behavior like that.

But yea, not all groups are like that, and it is unfortunate you have to deal with it.

Wayniac wrote:
It might be realistic but this is exactly the sort of thing that leads to my "math hammer is the devil" rant. Because this does NOT look like fun. It looks like boiling everything down to numbers, and then unequivocally stating that X is bad so there are zero reasons to ever take X unless you're a masochist (or scrub, or CAAC, or whatever term we want to use) and will defend X to the death because you just want to make it work, while everyone else will ignore X because "the numbers" say X is bad. There's no discussion of how to make X work (this is more the fault of the system though; other wargames usually have ways to make things work somehow) just X sucks take Y instead. Which is feth all helpful to someone who likes X and wanted to make it work to be told "Nope, there is no way to do that. You chose poorly, buy something else and research this time so you don't make this mistake again"

When GW pitches the game as being a spectacle and how you should pick armies/units/lists based on what looks good, or what jumps out as thematic to you, or basically anything other than "The number-crunching says this is good", then while it's not "wrong" seeing that approach to the game looks like it's flying in the face of everything the game is presented to be about. Basically, it's that math hammer denigrates the game to not caring about anything EXCEPT mathematical efficiency. Sure, that's a valid way to play. I totally get some people enjoy analyzing everything in exquisite detail to find the "best". But, and I sound like a crotchety old man here I know, god damn it, that approach FEELS like it's wrong.

I don't really disagree with how you feel about it; I'm just explaining my approach. Knowing how and why things work the way they do lets me understand how and why some things don't work. Now, where I find internet discussion on the matter problematic is that they usually don't know how to take this information beyond finding what's most optimal. I find the information interesting because if you dig a little deeper and find how much less optimal something is, you can start to come up with some better answers to your other questions than "X sucks, take Y". The game is big enough that you can include some pet models here and there and still have a pretty solid build. It's just a question of how much efficiency you're willing to give up to put it on the table. If the top tournament list is 100% efficient or so; its pretty easy to play 80% or so and still be in the game and still often win, particularly at a local level and there's really nothing wrong with that.

Generally when something is suboptimal, its not doing nothing. For example, I get that DW Veterans with Storm Bolters and Shields are super optimal, but I like Frag Cannons and some of the Primaris options. Those things are "less" optimal, but still pretty solid; like 90% or so of the best choice. Taking them as one of my troop choices isn't crippling my list. The same is true of most models people love but aren't great. They still do something in game and can be really fun to play if you love them; you just need to be realistic about it. Where I see people get into trouble is when they get convinced that to enjoy their favorite model they have to spam it. I find more enjoyment when I start with something optimal and find something to remove to fit in just one of whatever it is that I love and make the most of it. It gives my favorite model its best chance to succeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
We have a handful of guys that only ever take tournament lists regardless of what type of game they are playing.

Because to them all games should be ultra competitive, no matter where they are played and to them in their mind they are properly preparing their opponents to play at that level by beating the garbage units off the table to encourage them to go buy better units to be better players.

Which is where I say it bleeds into all forms of play where I am.

Generally every meta experiences a bit of an arms race. Some of it comes from players who really are of the WAAC mindset, but its also just something of a natural progression. You get two rather casual players that play a game and afterwards, the loser feels disappointed in how a unit performed or just gets something new and shiny and adds it to their list. Over time this just naturally evolves their list into something more competitive. It's actually the process most competitive lists come from; they're just generally forged from players who get in a dozen games a week and are able to rapidly explore and evolve their lists.

It's honestly rather hard to tune things back down. Most people bring their best and expect their opponent to do the same and in a game with as many models as 40k, sometimes its even hard to have weaker options on hand to play with, let alone judge how weak is weak enough. It's hard to get a feel of whether you're losing because you held back too much or winning because you didn't hold back enough compared to the purity of neither side holding back. There's a difference between winning and improving as a player and to a lot of people the latter can't exist if you're pulling your punches. Of course, some people just like to win without any regards to their opponent. They're definitely a challenge to keep in line.

 Horst wrote:
Out of curiosity, are they actually tournament players?

If you check https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/, do their names appear on the overall rankings? Are they actually ranked? Or are they just trying to smash casual players to make up for the fact that they can't do well at tournaments? Because it sounds like they're trying to compensate for something with behavior like that.

But yea, not all groups are like that, and it is unfortunate you have to deal with it.

They play in ITC tournaments, travel to tournaments like ATC and Adepticon, and some fly to Las Vegas for LVO so yeah.

 Horst wrote:
Unfortunately it sounds like you're dealing with some rather toxic players then, that are just ruining the fun for everyone. Do you have other guys that don't play tournament lists? I'd try to talk to them, and maybe convince them to just stop playing against those guys who bring tournament lists. Maybe they'll get the message if people refuse to play them.

I guess it also depends what you mean by "tournament" lists. If they're bringing something like mono codex Astra Militarum, but using 3 Tank Commanders instead of 3 Leman Russ, that isn't really a tournament list. If they're bringing Astra Militarum with Blood Angels allies and some Assassins, that's a different matter entirely.

As usual, it sounds like those who hate tournament players are the actual "toxic players'. I have rarely seen tournament players be so damn judgmental against players who prefer narrative games, yet the reverse is quite true in regards to those that hate tournament players for some bizarre reasons. I've always contended its because they hate losing and yet don't want to actually learn to play at the tournament level which is much more a WAAC mentality.

I think its more they hate playing a one-sided game where the winner is already determined because their opponent won't tone the power of their list down, thrusting the complete onus on the narrative/casual player to collect and chase the power meta to have good games along with the tournament players that already gladly do this.

Which takes us down the road of GW and GW inept balancing is the root of the problem.

I don't hate tournament players.

I dislike players that show up to campaign days knowing the game is narrative and casual and knowing that that is the type of list expected with their ATC/Adepticon/LVO list.

I certainly don't hate tournament players going to tournaments and playing with tournament lists. That is expected.

 auticus wrote:
I think its more they hate playing a one-sided game where the winner is already determined because their opponent won't tone the power of their list down, thrusting the complete onus on the narrative/casual player to collect and chase the power meta to have good games along with the tournament players that already gladly do this.

Which takes us down the road of GW and GW inept balancing is the root of the problem.

I don't hate tournament players.

I dislike players that show up to campaign days knowing the game is narrative and casual and knowing that that is the type of list expected with their ATC/Adepticon/LVO list.

I certainly don't hate tournament players going to tournaments and playing with tournament lists. That is expected.

I dont disagree, as I can play up or down in my lists depending on what kind of game I want. However, good players tend to beat average players regardless of list and that is what I think many people discount (their own overall skill level at the game). I just have not seen a tournament player have spew such open vitriol at non-tournament players in the same way. I'm always astounded that 40k is one of the few miniature games where its players all think they "know how to play the game well" and get mad when they lose, rather than sit down and figure out why they lost. This isn't as big of a problem in other miniature games.

My experience is not the same as yours in regards to player skill. I've already outlined that in past posts though.

TLDR: when my powergaming buddies and myself stopped powergaming, our win/loss ratio plummeted to about 50/50. I can count on one hand the number of players I've met over 20 years of playing 40k or WHFB/AOS that could take a bad list and beat an ok player that had a great list.

I find good games are great players with bad lists playing bad players (not average ... bad) with good lists. Those games usually are fun to play or watch because they are unpredictable.

Tournament players don't slag non tournament players because they are the dictators of what type of game gets played typically.

Now in my events and any narrative event I have been to that forced certain types of lists, I *have* reliably seen tournament players slag non tournament players because they don't like to have to change their list.

Which leads me to the conclusion that it has nothing to do wtih tournament vs non tournament players. It has to do with being forced to field a list that you don't want to. Typically in most environments, the powerlisters are going to be dictating you have to take powerlists if you want a good game unless they are willing to tone down (which some will) and so naturally the players that are being forced to buy models they don't like to have a good game are the casual / narrative players - thus displaying disproportionately more venom at having to do so than tournament players will ever exhibit, as dictators of what playstyle is being played. They will tone down, *if they want to*. Narrative players will have to power up *if they want a good game*.

However some of the times if an event really enforces certain list comps, you will see it the other way around.

This isn't as big of a problem in other miniatures games for a variety of reasons.

#1) most games are not as packed with players, meaning the competitive scenes in most games are tiny. Most people in any other game I play will not min/max, not because they can't or don't know how, but because there is that social contract present that does not exist in 40k or AOS/WHFB.

#2) most games also have a tighter ruleset than GW games, which just exasperates the issues with bad balance while also wanting to appeal to min/max play and narrative play at the same time.

Non-tournament players usually aren't the ones who go to a tournament, lose and then say how the tournament should be less competitive. They just stay away from tournaments.

What's far more common though is the group of tournament players going to campaign/narrative events with their tournament list and wrecking face and it's all "git gud" sort of horsegak, instead of staying away from those events unless they want to tone down.

Basically, the tournament players have their organized events (i.e. tournaments) where it can be expected you won't find casual players (you sometimes get the ones who don't care if they win or lose, they want to just have fun). But the flip side is often not true, and you're likely to find tournament players lurking around casual events trying to "win" a campaign, or if they're real donkey caves then deliberately to disrupt the event.

Also exactly what auticus stated. Usually, your tournament players are in the position of power. They have more power to exert over the community and "meta". So a tournament player doesn't *have* to tone down their list if they don't want to. Some will (IMHO the best ones who know when to bring a power list and when to bring something fun), but a lot will just tell everyone else to "git gud" which results in the non-tournament players *having* to power up their list, or get their teeth kicked in repeatedly. It's a power imbalance.

And yes, the majority of tournament players do NOT do this. But it only takes one jackass doing it to completely kill off non-tournament games, at least from the public eye.

In my experience they aren't there trying to actually be disruptive, but indeed are there to win campaigns or narrative events as hard as they try to win tournaments with the same type of list because everything should be played at that level of competitiveness to them.

Would also like to point out I am not saying all tournament players do this. Or even half. Its typically a handful in a larger group.

But it only takes 1 or 2 to get the bile going in the event they are inadvertently crashing.