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.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You as a player have made the choice that your entire company must be "on camera" together

This is a very good point.

As someone who loves it when the rules are evocative and sees the gaming table like an RPG where everyone is a GM, thinking about it like a film maker really speaks to me. You've got to have scenes where the whole company is there, but the ones that zoom in on particular individuals or small groups are super important if you want to have a good mental movie of your fiction.

This is usually what I do for smaller point games. Obviously, my core doesn't fit at 500, 1000, 1250, or even 1500 (depending on the company I want to bring), so I usually bring one and some support. The best examples of the fluff in action are when I play with an allied Imperium player; usually I can bring one superheavy, some goons in a Trojan from the rest of the supreme command, and then fill in the points with the support units of my choice to make a 1000 point army to play alongside another 1000 point army in a team game. That way, it's one superheavy with friends and an allied commander, which I think is the pinnacle of fluff.

But team games are rarer than I'd like.

EDIT: Another 1000 point army that's super fun for me to play (but loses a lot) is my Regimental Commander and her retinue/support units riding in the regimental command vehicle. It's a fun gaggle of models, inspired by the artwork of the game, and includes her war-dog (the Forge World cyber-mastiff), though he's just a chainsword-armed command squad guardsman in this edition, and her bodyguards and whatnot. It's fun & fluffy and fits in 1000 points, though I usually have to think long and hard about why my regimental commander would show up to a battle. If it's against GSC or something I can usually get away with saying they targeted her with an ambush, but it can get weird against certain army constructions.

 auticus wrote:
I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.

That's not entirely the case. I play the vast majority of my games with a relatively small group of friends. Pick up games aren't super common; its just exciting to be able to play the same game when they happen. Likewise, its also nice to be able to bring whatever I want to my regular playgroup and try it out. Sometimes that means it weak and I get trounced, but that's my experiment and in many ways the fun part of experimentation. Then again, I'll play out a losing game until I've actually lost just to see how much I can accomplish against overwhelming odds. I play competitive, but I like find more of my fun in the game than in the win.

 Chamberlain wrote:

nou wrote:
I must admit, you seem to have won a lottery and live in a worldwide centre of "out of the rut" players. To date I considered myself lucky by having a four (now sadly just three) person group and there are people like Wayniac here, that struggle to find anyone open enough to even try our route. The "host prepares the table and scenario" approach is very much what we do, including giving a brief description of such location and overall goal prior to list construction representing "vaguely reliable intel data".

The truth is that a friend of mine built it. He spent a couple years making sure everyone had contact with one another, organized events and made sure everyone was on the same page. If anyone expressed any interest in anything geeky, he got their contact info. His theory was that if GW really didn't believe that enough of their customers were into a more casual experience, they wouldn't concentrate on it so much. So the people must be out there and we just need to find them. They were. We did.

Here's the thing-- we don't just give our contact info out to anyone. And we're not game beggers who tragically search for opponents who look for the same thing as we do. We don't rail against our plight (we don't have a plight) And we never, ever (this is so important) speak negatively about the game choices of other people in person. We aren't looking for the elite few who "get it." We're looking for the normal boring majority who don't take things seriously enough to show up to tournaments or store gaming nights.

The other thing we don't do is poach from established warhammer groups who are already enjoying their thing. If we stumble across someone who also happens to be part of some other group, that's cool I guess. We will go to events organized for semi-related interests. We will run Age of Sigmar Skirmish at the local board game club.

We make new hobbyists. Or have people who used to play get back into it. How we go about doing this is sort of complex and related to the reality of having small children, but our primary source of new players are the parents of toddlers who might be friends of friends and we show up with the self contained board game equivalent of the hobby. The extroverts often have the hardest time adjusting to their less social existence when children come along and someone always has to be there while they are sleeping.

It's the same group of people among whom Dungeons and Dragons is having a serious renaissance right now. And they're probably among the main contributors to the explosion of the board game industry.

Regular attendees of store events and organized play? They already have what they are looking for. If I wanted to find the local Wayniac who is disappointed and frustrated with the nature of his scene, he's not going to be there.

Pretty similiar story here, the main difference being it was me who introduced few boardgamers into 40K (I was able to make introductory games with my long shelved 2nd ed Eldar collection) but it was a bit of luck to actually meet those people in the first place and seizing the opportunate moment. Having time and means to make elaborate terrain and having a place for seting it up comfortably helped with that immensely. That is another reason why such groups might attract more aged players - we simply have the space and money to be FLGS independent...

 auticus wrote:
I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.

Could very well be a factor.

I am lucky that the scene I am in is rather good so it isn't hard to get a game going and our FLGS has several tables and ton of terrain for us. On top of that I have my own setup at home if I want to chill out with my besties. The scene here ain't WAAC, but it can be considered slightly competitive by some of the commenters here. However, I have not found that to lessen my enjoyment and people are always willing to try out scenarios and interesting stuff. If anything I have found some of the competitive people here use a lot of interesting lists as they test out varying synergies on the field.

For the record I haven't seen much spam in the local group(except for the lulz or when Scatter Bikes ruled all), but people will not refrain from using strong units. You will see Dark Reapers, Mortarion, Guilliman, Shining Spears, and so on on the tables.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.

That's not entirely the case. I play the vast majority of my games with a relatively small group of friends. Pick up games aren't super common; its just exciting to be able to play the same game when they happen. Likewise, its also nice to be able to bring whatever I want to my regular playgroup and try it out. Sometimes that means it weak and I get trounced, but that's my experiment and in many ways the fun part of experimentation. Then again, I'll play out a losing game until I've actually lost just to see how much I can accomplish against overwhelming odds. I play competitive, but I like find more of my fun in the game than in the win.

This has been my experience with competitive people in many ways. Unless it is some WAAC net-list user competitive people try out different things in search of hidden combos and jewels.

 LunarSol wrote:
Likewise, its also nice to be able to bring whatever I want to my regular playgroup and try it out. Sometimes that means it weak and I get trounced, but that's my experiment and in many ways the fun part of experimentation. Then again, I'll play out a losing game until I've actually lost just to see how much I can accomplish against overwhelming odds. I play competitive, but I like find more of my fun in the game than in the win.

This is *the* attitude to have.

The problem is when people get disappointed by how they think things *should* work rather than accepting the way they actually do. Then there's a mismatch between their chosen way to play and their own interests. When people can't accept that what they have built is weak and see games against overwhelming odds as a bad thing rather than accepting the challenge they present.

It's like the mindset is separate from the mode of play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Pretty similiar story here, the main difference being it was me who introduced few boardgamers into 40K (I was able to make introductory games with my long shelved 2nd ed Eldar collection) but it was a bit of luck to actually meet those people in the first place and seizing the opportunate moment. Having time and means to make elaborate terrain and having a place for seting it up comfortably helped with that immensely. That is another reason why such groups might attract more aged players - we simply have the space and money to be FLGS independent...

It's why I think games like Necromunda, Shadespire and Sigmar Skirmish are so important to finding new players. They let people have the space to play in a smaller area with less models and terrain.

One I think I do, which might seem crazy, is that I ask about the social situation of any parent that talks about their young children. I ask how they are finding their social lives with children of whatever age they are and talk about how we get together regularly to play board games and games like them and that if either of them is interested, they're welcome. Or maybe some of us can come by and bring a game some time.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
So if competitive 40k is ruining 40k for you

Competitive 40k is in no way ruining 40k for me.

I just prefer a different subset of the 40k experience and make sure that any potential opponent and I come to an understanding before we play.

Understood. So, this thread was a bit derailed by my own misunderstanding. The title of the thread is basically framed around competitive being bad and ruining 40k. I assumed you were coming from this position. My mistake - apologies.

I will say that when you're branching out and trying to meet new people playing 40k the easiest way to do this is with a standard ruleset that you both acknowledge and understand. I've actually made more friends playing in ITC tournaments than in casual games. I've seen worse characters in tournaments than casual games, but that's just how it goes when you run into people who have social / developmental issues, which kind of what you get with this hobby.

My personal experience is that casual games usually lead to some crossfire of "oh you brought that," or "oh you're using that stratagem," with a negative tone, because it's considered "too strong" for casual play. It's really incredibly difficult to nail this down. That's part of the reason tournaments are nice. This sentiment should not exist, and anyone who has it needs to check their ego at the door. The game isn't balanced, and you will lose games even if you're the Steven Hawking of 40k, deal with it.

Played a casual multiplayer game and someone brought 3 razorbacks. One opponent says, "Oh, razorbacks really? Three counts as SPAM." The razorback guy doesn't play competitive and had no idea what the heck was going on. He got stomped horribly anyway, because he's not a great player in the first place, just likes to play for fun. He just happens to have 3 razorbacks, and he brought them. Ultimately everyone walked away from the game kind of on edge, it was a tense and difficult experience.

Honestly, for me the thing that ruins 40k is sloppy ruleswriting, fluff/crunch disconnects, and "not your dudes" reduction of options.

 auticus wrote:
I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.

Possibly for those in very populous areas. Around here the faces don't change much.

 Marmatag wrote:

I will say that when you're branching out and trying to meet new people playing 40k the easiest way to do this is with a standard ruleset that you both acknowledge and understand. I've actually made more friends playing in ITC tournaments than in casual games.

This I totally get. A common denominator of all the tournament related podcasts I listen to is that they have great experiences and make great friends.

My personal experience is that casual games usually lead to some crossfire of "oh you brought that," or "oh you're using that stratagem," with a negative tone, because it's considered "too strong" for casual play. It's really incredibly difficult to nail this down. That's part of the reason tournaments are nice. This sentiment should not exist, and anyone who has it needs to check their ego at the door.

Absolutely. The ego thing is also why I advocate intentionally playing unfair scenarios. So people can get used to the opponent doing such obviously powerful things without being negative about it. Taking half the points your opponent is taking is about cultivating a mindset. And learning how to find the fun in a variety of game circumstances. Actually it's also a useful one for competitive players too as being willing to try taking "bad" units and then losing can be part of discovering hidden gems and playing uphill battles can really tighten up ones tactical play skills. And it will help with the mental game when things go wrong at an event and you lose half your army in an early turn and have to suddenly deal with what has effectively become a "Death or Glory" or "Hold at all Costs" scenario.

Those with undefined specifications that they're expecting others to somehow know through mind reading aren't really relaxed people. They'd be poor opponents in any game. Instead of playing the actual game, they want you to limit yourself to their choices. At least the person insisting on an equal points matched play game by the book has an actually understandable standard. Which was a point you had raised earlier.

If those were the sorts of people I had to deal with then for sure I'd insist on fixed points matched play. Trying to match someone's unspoken requirements is crazy. In that situation, I would save the custom scenarios and the departure from the match play standard for gamers that I know I can trust. I find though that setting up the open and trusting vibe from the get go seems to work. That's not going to work with some random person who already has a strong opinion of what the game "should be" that you're supposed to guess.

If you need to the rules to protect you from a given opponent, it's probably best to just decline the game in general. Or make sure the game is part of a larger event like a tournament where you have some recourse to the TO or judges if you meet a truly horrible player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Honestly, for me the thing that ruins 40k is ... and "not your dudes" reduction of options.

Is this like where if the model with a weapon load out isn't currently sold it can disappear from the next codex? Even though people might have built their own during a time when the codex included the option? Or is it something else?

We actually do non-standard weapon load outs. I'm making a primaris platoon that uses the traditional codex structure. So I'm converting primaris guys to have things like heavy bolters and flamers or missile launchers or jump packs and bolt pistols and chain swords. The points costs for individual weapons are all there, so we figured "why not?" So far it's worked fine, but I could see it totally breaking down if people tried to use such options to make an army that is as strong as possible.

Oh, and Primaris guys can get into land raiders when we play. And drop pods. We tend to do a 2:1 primaris:regular marine, but we're okay if someone puts like 6 or 7 guys in a drop pod or a land raider (I'd probably be fine with 10 guys in a land raider. It's really big). And repulsors can transport non primaris marines too. Since no one is taking this state of affairs and asking "how can I totally break this to make the strongest force possible?" like the weapon loadout freedom, it's been working fine for us.

Though we don't do that sort of thing very often. It's like a special occasion thing. And my primaris guys are magnetized so they can switch back to the load outs on the data sheet.

On the subject of "scenario play":

My last game was Open War, and inadvertently we drew a nightmare scenario for me. Marines start in the middle of the board, surrounded by Tyranids, couldn't see beyond 12", and I couldn't maneuver much because he can "burn" my objective counters and automatically win.

Effin great game though! One of the most memorable in recent times for me.

 Chamberlain wrote:
Is this like where if the model with a weapon load out isn't currently sold it can disappear from the next codex? Even though people might have built their own during a time when the codex included the option? Or is it something else?

We actually do non-standard weapon load outs. I'm making a primaris platoon that uses the traditional codex structure. So I'm converting primaris guys to have things like heavy bolters and flamers or missile launchers or jump packs and bolt pistols and chain swords. The points costs for individual weapons are all there, so we figured "why not?" So far it's worked fine, but I could see it totally breaking down if people tried to use such options to make an army that is as strong as possible.

Oh, and Primaris guys can get into land raiders when we play. And drop pods. We tend to do a 2:1 primaris:regular marine, but we're okay if someone puts like 6 or 7 guys in a drop pod or a land raider (I'd probably be fine with 10 guys in a land raider. It's really big). And repulsors can transport non primaris marines too. Since no one is taking this state of affairs and asking "how can I totally break this to make the strongest force possible?" like the weapon loadout freedom, it's been working fine for us.

Though we don't do that sort of thing very often. It's like a special occasion thing. And my primaris guys are magnetized so they can switch back to the load outs on the data sheet.

It's not just the removal of options, but the overall message it sends, alongside new options being made more "statically-posed"/restrictive in their loadout implementation (For example, there realistically is no balance reason that a Primaris Captain can only take a Power Sword rather than any other specific option; it's just due to the model in question). For me, 40k is half a competitive game/gentleman's duel (two people enter with an army, one emerges the victor), and half a "build your force/tell your story" game. For the first aspect I have to ask "why am I playing 40k instead of Starcraft" and for the second aspect I have to ask "why am I collecting Citadel plastics instead of LEGO" (or doing some other creative endeavor, like amateur blacksmith/lapidary craftsmanship).

There was a Facebook thread awhile ago that asked why the Eldar Codex did not have the option for the Autarch to have a Banshee Mask or a Reaper Launcher, and the answer was "we didn't want new players to have to kitbash/convert in order to gain access to options. That was not cool on our part." It sets off the part of my brain that thinks of Harrison Bergeron and leveling the playing field by removing the incentive to try going outside the box.

For my part I'm happy to no longer need to scratch-build, buy a second box, upgrade sprue or buy third party bits in order to have the weapon load-out I need.

The boxes should just come with all the options. Especially for characters this is very easy to do.

 Chamberlain wrote:
We actually do non-standard weapon load outs. I'm making a primaris platoon that uses the traditional codex structure. So I'm converting primaris guys to have things like heavy bolters and flamers or missile launchers or jump packs and bolt pistols and chain swords. The points costs for individual weapons are all there, so we figured "why not?" So far it's worked fine, but I could see it totally breaking down if people tried to use such options to make an army that is as strong as possible.

Oh, and Primaris guys can get into land raiders when we play. And drop pods. We tend to do a 2:1 primaris:regular marine, but we're okay if someone puts like 6 or 7 guys in a drop pod or a land raider (I'd probably be fine with 10 guys in a land raider. It's really big). And repulsors can transport non primaris marines too. Since no one is taking this state of affairs and asking "how can I totally break this to make the strongest force possible?" like the weapon loadout freedom, it's been working fine for us.

Though we don't do that sort of thing very often. It's like a special occasion thing. And my primaris guys are magnetized so they can switch back to the load outs on the data sheet.

I am kind of confused here. Aren't you the one advocating fluff-based games? Why are you bypassing a fluff-based restriction in favor of making a stronger list, instead of sticking to the fluff?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
We actually do non-standard weapon load outs. I'm making a primaris platoon that uses the traditional codex structure. So I'm converting primaris guys to have things like heavy bolters and flamers or missile launchers or jump packs and bolt pistols and chain swords. The points costs for individual weapons are all there, so we figured "why not?" So far it's worked fine, but I could see it totally breaking down if people tried to use such options to make an army that is as strong as possible.

Oh, and Primaris guys can get into land raiders when we play. And drop pods. We tend to do a 2:1 primaris:regular marine, but we're okay if someone puts like 6 or 7 guys in a drop pod or a land raider (I'd probably be fine with 10 guys in a land raider. It's really big). And repulsors can transport non primaris marines too. Since no one is taking this state of affairs and asking "how can I totally break this to make the strongest force possible?" like the weapon loadout freedom, it's been working fine for us.

Though we don't do that sort of thing very often. It's like a special occasion thing. And my primaris guys are magnetized so they can switch back to the load outs on the data sheet.

I am kind of confused here. Aren't you the one advocating fluff-based games? Why are you bypassing a fluff-based restriction in favor of making a stronger list, instead of sticking to the fluff?

You're confusing "open minded and varied" with "fluff-driven". Sometimes it is the fluff that dictates a list or scenario, sometimes it's a particular flavour of a game. And sometimes such flavour is unachievable "by the rules". For example, for a long, long time, there was no official way to field an all-wraith construct army. You might defend a fluff-based notion, that wraith constructs need living Eldar units to operate (present in the fluff since 2nd ed), but a lot of people fancy pure construct army aesthetics, where a single Spirit Seer simply pain the eyes and there is no other reason needed really to allow Wraithseers or Wraitlords to lead such armies.

Also, "bypassing a restriction to make stronger list" shows basic misunderstanding how the concept of relative list building works in groups like Chamberlain's or mine - you can pretty much play any power level and have a great "relaxed experience" with it, as long as the rest of the scenario and opposing army are prepared accordingly. You can even fit strong alpha-strike lists in this mindset as long as scenario or terrain are desinged to hinder that ability enough to actually let the game last more that two turns and have meaningfull goals for both sides.

It may shock you a bit, but I pretty much never play a single list more than one session (2-4 games usually) and my collection is driven by variety of possible interesting/thematic builds, not by pure strenght considerations. You can have an engaging and demanding encounter prepared for weak Storm Guardian centric build or for strong Ynnari build and both of them will require equal amount of in-game thinking skill if you just prepare a game properly.

 Jidmah wrote:
For my part I'm happy to no longer need to scratch-build, buy a second box, upgrade sprue or buy third party bits in order to have the weapon load-out I need.

The boxes should just come with all the options. Especially for characters this is very easy to do.

Me too, even though I have to admit scratch building stuff can be a lot of fun, and I'd absolutely hate collecting armies with no customization.

But I'd rather rely on kitbashing and having more options available than having only a few options on the table because the box came with those bitz and we must decide what to glue only chosing from those few bitz.

 Peregrine wrote:

I am kind of confused here. Aren't you the one advocating fluff-based games? Why are you bypassing a fluff-based restriction in favor of making a stronger list, instead of sticking to the fluff?

My personal approach to list building is to do what seems cool in terms of models. Fiction would be part of that.

I see the 40k background as a sandbox to play in ràther than holy writ. I think the restrictions on primaris not fitting in land raiders while custodes can to be ridiculous. Similarly I find the idea that chapters wouldn't give primaris marines flamers or heavy bolters to be a bit unbelievable as well.

Also, a primaris with a missile launcher sort of sucks compared to more efficient form of heavy weapon delivery. A primaris dev squad might actually be worse than both regular dev squads or hellblaster squads. So I might actually be making things weaker.

Even if this is slightly stronger the power of the list is going to be nothing compared to a list built with the goal of being as strong as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

You're confusing "open minded and varied" with "fluff-driven".

Primaris had a "this is what marines should have always been like!" impression on me. So I just sort of ran with that feeling and combined it with my enjoyment of the original tactical, assault, devastator breakdown. It certainly wasn't a result of adherence to fluff.

[

Trying to win is only natural right? Even in casual gaming club, if you only bring a fluffy army and lose and loose and loose again, you're gonna be pissed. You're gonna tweak up your list and try to win. Others will fellow. An arms race will build up.

No my real problem about all things GW is that armies are never balanced. Points costs pop out of i don't know what (i assume its to make 1000pts-2000pts round list easier), but you get often XXX pts stuff that is far inferior to another ennemy same XXX pts cost. Even intra-factions, there are always auto-include and auto-crap that only rotate between editions.

I understand balancing 300+ different models is tough, but when you look at videogames, patch after patch after patch the companies are balancing their stuff. I feel like GW is not even trying, that's not thier goal.

And of course IF you want to play competitive, Chaos, GW prefered baby, will always be at least okay. Orks or other legacy fantasy factions - not always.

Da W wrote:
Trying to win is only natural right? Even in casual gaming club, if you only bring a fluffy army and lose and loose and loose again, you're gonna be pissed. You're gonna tweak up your list and try to win. Others will fellow. An arms race will build up.

No my real problem about all things GW is that armies are never balanced. Points costs pop out of i don't know what (i assume its to make 1000pts-2000pts round list easier), but you get often XXX pts stuff that is far inferior to another ennemy same XXX pts cost. Even intra-factions, there are always auto-include and auto-crap that only rotate between editions.

I understand balancing 300+ different models is tough, but when you look at videogames, patch after patch after patch the companies are balancing their stuff. I feel like GW is not even trying, that's not thier goal.

And of course IF you want to play competitive, Chaos, GW prefered baby, will always be at least okay. Orks or other legacy fantasy factions - not always.

You can certainly say that before 8th GW didn't care.
They seem to be taking a very different approach now tho and they are actually making changes to try and achieve a better balance.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now based on their actions since the Launch of 8th. We will see how it holds up in the future.

 Blackie wrote:
Me too, even though I have to admit scratch building stuff can be a lot of fun, and I'd absolutely hate collecting armies with no customization.

This is not what is happening though.

I recently started death guard, which is made up of all those dreaded mono-pose models, easy to build kits and vehicles without and weapon choices.

Guess what? The models still look awesome (better than most multi-pose kits), and between ETB box, starter sets, plague brethren, the two characters and the regular plague marine box, there are 22 unique bodies just for plague marines. I doubt I have seen that many different loyalist marines in my life. The ETB terminators plus the normal box are 8 unique terminator bodies and there are 16 unique pox walker models.
You can probably make at least twice as many unique models with easy conversions like head and arm swaps.

The blight hauler has taken some flakk for being a model without any customization. But in reality, all my trukks loot the same as well, and almost all trukks I have ever seen in real life or on photos like like my trukks.
So does it really matter if the trukk has an option for rokkits or not?