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.

Be it Tournament, Casual, Apocalypse or Custom, an Active Gamer is a Spending Gamer.

Now, as a non-Tournament goer, I had started to feel a little put off gaming by the Interwebs. Porseer and Wartent seemed to view Tournament Gaming as the be all and end all. Dakka can be contrued in much the same way.

Then Apocalypse came out. Was it something for the Veterans? Erm, well, kind of I suppose, insofar as at the point of release, it was us crusty old coots who had the army sizes to take immediate advantage. But either way, it felt to me like a big, screaming Neon banner type thingy declaring GW had remembered the games are meant to be FUN! This was rather pleasing to me, as the Web chatter became less Tourny centric.

I think the Standard Bearer Articles are a good idea (though the execution tends to vary) as it gives the author the chance to try and explain some of GW's thinking. But, each to their own. I don't buy White Dwarf, simply because I can get similar digestive literature online in a gloriously interactive form. An example of which you are reading right now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Be it Tournament, Casual, Apocalypse or Custom, an Active Gamer is a Spending Gamer.

Now, as a non-Tournament goer, I had started to feel a little put off gaming by the Interwebs. Porseer and Wartent seemed to view Tournament Gaming as the be all and end all. Dakka can be contrued in much the same way.

Well, I think there are two reasons for that perception.

1) Different forums have different focuses. Dakka's tends to be more about competititve gaming, BolS is more about casual gaming, B&C is focused on MEQs, etc.

2) Realistically, there's more to talk about with regards to competitive gaming than there is casual gaming. Now, Dakka has active forums discussing modeling, painting, fluff, rules, etc., but it's hard to really talk about casual gaming.
Gamer 1: "I like swooping hawks. They're a fun unit and it's cool to bring down a monolith or landraider with them."
Gamer 2: "Yeah, but I think Warp spiders are more fun. They get a jump back move!"

How much discussion can you really have? Now, debating which unit is better gets a bit more objective.

I wasn't a criticism as such, as clearly any perceived problem lies entirely with me. It's myself who doesn't like (or more appropriately see the appeal in it) Tournaments, and it's my decision to continue contribting to such conversations.

But I do find it quite..thinking of the best word or phrase...disheartening, that whenever someone posts up an army list, tactic etc for discusssion/critique, rather than being given advice on how best to use what they have, you get self appointed experts essentially telling them to go and buy an entirely new army.

The Interwebs tends to give a fairly one sided view of gaming, and I applaude JJ's attempt to give the other side. Is one better than the other? Dunno, but I do believe in Horses for Courses!

I would debate your opinion that Competitive Gaming has more discussion topics than Casual Gaming, but thats another thread entirely, and possibly better done through PMs!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Be it Tournament, Casual, Apocalypse or Custom, an Active Gamer is a Spending Gamer.

Now, as a non-Tournament goer, I had started to feel a little put off gaming by the Interwebs. Porseer and Wartent seemed to view Tournament Gaming as the be all and end all. Dakka can be contrued in much the same way.

...
....

It could, but that would be incorrect. Dakka is a broad church.

I think I'll give an example. Now bear in mind I've not been on Dakka all that long (about 6 months I think? Possibly a smidge longer) and in that time, we've had Stelek ragging on the Wrecking Crew, the depressive reading that was the accusations of cheating at 'Ard Boyz etc.

I know Dakka has better content than that, and I certainly try to contribute my own bit, but it sometimes feels like personal grudges spill over into other threads. I started a couple of threads trying to explore the Tournament scene, essentially asking 'Is it just my mindset, or am I thick and genuinely missing the appeal of a Tournament'. I used the WC and 'Ard Boyz thingy as an example, explained why and mentioned that rather than focussing, this was purely for a reference I felt most people would get. And yet it became attacks on WC, responses to them, and the whole thing devolved. That kind of irked me, as I had done my best to avoid it, yet some people just can't let things be.

So, Standard Bearer serves as a medium to promote one way of gaming without banal opinions and ill conceived vitriol being spouted all over the subject, drowning out the good points and fair discussion.

And as a totally unrelated aside, I just saw an advert with Magical Trevor in it for Directory Enquiries. That was pretty cool!

Kilkrazy wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I also think that Apoc is less widely played
-- and probably more played by vets who have large collections.

From a marketing viewpoint, though, it sells a lot of books and kits.

And that's the one thing that really matters. Also, GW has a bunch of Apoc-specific kits that really help them gauge sales.

For the sake of scientific accuracy, the sales of Apoc-specific kits only tell them the sales of Apoc-specific kits, not whether or how much people are actually playing the Apoc rules. (Ditto for the rules, actually. I bought Cities of Death and never played it.)

A sale is still a sale, of course.

I do feel you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder regarding tournaments.

The typical player contribution to a team game of Apoc of 2,500 points is significantly more than you need for a tournament or a normal game of 40K.

They've been promoting tournaments for decades.

I do not say this in order to further an agenda of tournament vs Apoc. They both have their place in the 40K universe, as does Cities of Death, and revised Kill Team and 40K in 40 rules. I think setting one against the other is fruitless.

Yeah. Apoc rules, Superheavies, and mega-sets allow GW to monetize Apoc in much the same way they monetize anything else. It's not perfect, but it's close enough.

I have a chip only in the sense that I think the Tournament scene is overblown in self-congratulatory self-importance.

The typical player contribution can be as little or as large as desired. You can have a 2v2 Apoc game of 3-4k per side, and have a lot of fun. As I said above, my last Apoc game was 4.5k per side, and I only brought 1500 pts, which is about the same as what I used to play casually and in Tournaments. What you can't do is bring a 1300-pt army to a Tournament and expect it to work out OK if everybody else is bringing 1850.

GW used to promote Tournaments, because they pushed players from the 800-1000 (3E+) pts that they had at in 2E, to 1500+ pts in 3E, 1850+ pts in 4E. But GW never really promoted Tournaments in the way that the competitive only crowd seems to think that GW wanted (hardcore play, "Generalship" above all else). GW was just using the standardized increased points as a way to push tin. GW now pushes Apoc, because Apoc raises the bar to 2000, 2500, 3000 pts and beyond. But the idea that GW has ever been actively promoting strongly competitive play is entirely false. GW used GTs as a means to an end, and that end has always been to sell more stuff.

I agree that it's not especially instructive to set Apoc vs Tournies, especially because GW has clearly picked a "winner" in that contest.

Oooh! Epiphany of sorts.

Apocalypse is the perfect accompaniment to Tournament gaming. Why?

They can both be considered 'Event Gaming'.

For example, I gather from numerous sources a big part of a Tournament's enjoyment is the run up. Writing and deciding on your list, getting it painted, converting if you want, practicing with it, all pre big day.

Apocalypse offers much the same for the more Casual minded gamer. You arrange the date and location with your mates (two of mine have just moved into a mahoosive flat...GAME ON!) and then the same happens. Pour over the Apocalypse Books to see what Formations you can make, perhaps buy some new toys to surprise your friends with, paint it, convert if you want, and then enjoy Game Day.

Previously, us poor casual mooks were stuck in something of a rut, with little beyond getting a little bored of your force to encourage us to expand our forces, something which is seemingly not that big a problem with the Tourny players.

So, yeah. Same coin, two different sides, and equally enjoyable!

I see what you're saying Mad Doc, and agree on one level. They can both be seen as Event Gaming.

However, I don't think we needed Apoc (necessarily) to consider 40K event gaming. The game mechanics didn't change, they didn't speed the game up, they added strategic assets, datasheets, and a dinner-plate sized template.

After the success of Cities of Death, and the inclusion of strategies in that supplement, any gaming group "could" have come up with those types of rules to use in "their" Event. You could always play 40k with more than 1850 points, and often you'd see those games referenced in WD or on the web.

The Tempus Fugitives in the UK have been running "hobby weekends" for years (before Apoc), which are solely focused on playing games in a 'scenario driven' format. I've never really seen the outcomes, or heard how well they go, but I love their approach, the rulespacks they put out, etc. All before Apoc.

I think what JJ does in standard bearer is try to bring everything back to the idea that "the game is there to have fun." There are many different ways to do that, with none superior to the other, and JJ has his opinion (like we all do).

So basically, I agree, I think :-)

Yarr.

But like a Tournament, Apocalypse offers event gaming where you don't really have to much arranging, as some kind person has done that for you.

Should things go well on Tuesday, I am looking forward to eventually having most of the Ork Datasheets collected, painted, and ready to stomp the Galaxy into little splutchy Pancakes in the name of Gork and Mork!

And with that size of collection, combined with my Mate's new flat (so much space, the jammy sods) and our Gaming Tables (I have realm of battle, they have 3 or 4 home mades) we'll be able to play Aporkalypse until we die from dehydration and malnutrition.

So, yeah. I guess my main point is that Apocalypse has managed to galvanise the more casual gamers in the way Tournaments did for more competitive players.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I guess my main point is that Apocalypse has managed to galvanise the more casual gamers in the way Tournaments did for more competitive players.

Exactly! Having another, well-supported, *FUN* way to play is good.

Different ways to play is always good.


Personally, I am really looking forward to Planet Strike and defender/attacker games.


Hell, the rumored "Skirmish" expansion sounds awesome as well, giving us a Necromunda feel

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I guess my main point is that Apocalypse has managed to galvanise the more casual gamers in the way Tournaments did for more competitive players.

Exactly! Having another, well-supported, *FUN* way to play is good.

So when are we going to hear the story of that one tournament game where you lost with your fluffy guard army? Seriously, just get over it already. We get you don't like tournaments. I hate apocalypse and think anyone that plays it is a self important mouth breather who cant paint but has too much money to blow. But you don't see me on a Dakka crusade.

Yeah get over it please.

G

Was that aimed at John or myself?

It was a general statement. Apoc and tourney players both are important to the hobby from the sales point of view. I don't think either group eclipses the other. Apoc is very cool and I have played my share of exciting mega battles. I posted a batrep once on a five thousand point pre heresy game of BA versus Iyanden. It takes a lot of time to come up with an interesting scenario and that to me is part of what makes the mega battle/Apoc fun. There will always be tourneys... There will always be mega battles... There is no need to say one is better than the other. The problem with Jervis is his attitude about how he thinks the game should be played and his flagrant attitude... It only continues to fan the flames. One day GW will eventually pull the plug on his Standard Bearer articles. It will in all likelyhood be replaced by more mindless drivel.

G

Little bit of cynicism coming at you now!

I'm going to introduce two probably unrelated events in GW, and tie them together into a paranoid statement...

From what I gather, GW are looking at cutting back on the number of Tournaments. Mainly heard this from the US, but given the prepoderence of US Gamers on Dakka (my main source of info) that isn't to say similar cuts aren't being made world wide.

Now, Standard Bearer tries to promote Apocalypse as the preferred Event Gaming method for most gamers. Whether it is or not is a matter of personal opinion and experience I suppose.

And here comes the paranoia....

What if these are two signs of a new strategy by GW? That they are cutting back on Tournaments, and promoting Apocalypse Games, so that one can replace the other as GW Organised Event Gaming (I do like that term. Can you tell?)

This would make a certain amount of sense in the context above. Now comes my own opinion. Do feel free to disagree in a constructive way as ever. But it strikes me, cash wise, it would cost a player more to Apocaylpse an existing force, than to fine tune it for a Tournament. OF course, some players build their force entirely around Tournament gaming, pay close attention to the current Metagame etc. Which is fine, I'm not criticising by acknolwedging. Each to their own as I am so fond of saying.

So, assuming (big assumption here, but without the theory falls down so bear with) that it would cost more to Apocalypse your army than tune it to a Tournament, this also makes solid financial sense for GW....

What do you reckon?

Seeing there is at least one GW sanctioned GT each month this year I'm not worried about it. I have enough problems just making it out to two or three. Apoc can't replace tournaments and any attempt to do so would epic fail massively.

G

It only makes sense from an operational perspective.

Apocalypse: More players supported by fewer tables. I can see someone doing the
math and coming to the conclusion that it's more economical to run Apoc Events.

However, I prefer monogamy to the gangbang. When I play 40k again (and I know
it has to happen someday) it will not be to play an Apoc game.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I just read the new article by Jervis and almost gagged to death reading that utter tripe. Has anyone else read it yet and if so what did you think? Jervis is seriously demented with his view of the game. I have met no one who plays the game how he describes the majority. I think the letter he posted was fake.

G

I haven't purchased the latest WD yet but I'm assuming this is my letter, as Jervis requested permission to publish it. So, while I can't be sure until I purchase the new WD, I can safely assume the letter is not fake .

Ryan

Poasted.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Seeing there is at least one GW sanctioned GT each month this year I'm not worried about it. I have enough problems just making it out to two or three. Apoc can't replace tournaments and any attempt to do so would epic fail massively.

G

I don't think they'd replace Tournaments completely with Apocalypse events, but I can see them making it a 50/50 affair. After all, it's not just GW who offer Tournaments. Third Parties seem to run them fairly often, so I guess you could say GW are trying to lead the way there?

Or not. I know I'd prefer to play in an Apocalypse event than a tournament, and I doubt I am alone, so there is definitely a market there to be served, and in doing so, sales to be garnered. But yes, dropping Tournaments altogether would be a silly idea. Looking a gift horse in the mouth and that.

The thing with comparing tournaments to apocolypse megabattles is that a tournament is relatively easy to run compared to a mega battle. Megabattles tend to become wild free for alls, with players adding, dropping, getting reduced to almost no units, and lots and lots of waiting around. the only way aroudn that is through ironclad enforcement of time, something that even the best tournaments tend to lack.

Megabattles can be fun, and can look awesome, but are really more of collaborative piece of performance art than an actual game. A lot of people like that, but as big a fan of apocolypse as I am, I still tend to avoid the BFG style mega battles.

Depends on how they run it.

They could decide that you enter as teams, with say 10,000 points between yourselves, and run it is a weekend long narrative campaign on some such.

I do agree that 'here's a massive board, all aboard' is a cack way to play Apocalypse.

I think it would have happened already if it was ever going to happen. Last year at the Baltimore GT there was a big megabattle on Friday so that everyone there not playing in the Ard Boyz finals could roll some dice. People in general just seem to be a lot more excited about playing in tournaments from what I gather.

G

Could just be our differing preferences then.

Ah well. I still think it would be a good idea to at least try.

Jervis's dumb standard bearer articles are pretty much directly comparable to Privateer Press's Page Five stupidity.

Never give a gamer a soapbox. We're egocentric gits, on the whole.

The biggest problem with Jervis is his Us vs Them mentality and if you're one of 'Them' then you're a bad person.

It's basically bullying and ruining the hobby as the attitude spreads to other people.

QFT

G

Unfortunately I kind of agree with the article.
(even if it "might" be fake)
I don't play GT's because I'm not in the slightest bit concerned in power gaming. ( no insult intended)
I play Space Wolves as my army of choice since 1988, not because they're broken, but because they have a history and heritage.
I play for fun, and to enjoy the company of friends..
What is apparent to me is that GW can't keep everyone happy all of the time, I suppose we should just accept that and get on with it

AdrianG wrote:
I don't play GT's because I'm not in the slightest bit concerned in power gaming. ( no insult intended)

I play for fun, and to enjoy the company of friends..

These two lines right here are what I see wrong with Jervis' opinion(and yours, AdrianG). There's this massive misconception that everyone that goes to big tournaments like Adepticon and the GTs are all like the Dakka Tough Guys that spout Win At All Costs! In essence, this opinion smacks of Tourney players = hardcore bastards who think the game is some measure of their penis.

I go to tournaments with groups of friends to have fun. I'm going to the Vegas GT this year with one of my best friends. Neither of us are "power gamers"(hell, we probably lose more than we win, we don't even care enough to keep track of our W/L/T records), we're going because it motivates us to paint better and guarantees us a weekend of play against some good opponents. We're gonna go ogle at the armies there, buy some Forge Worldy goodness, and maybe make some friends. All told, we're going to enjoy the hobby to the fullest(we could care less about Vegas, honestly, he's moving there this summer because of his job, and I'll be living in driving distance for a weekend trip within the month), not to win or to place our manhoods on the line. I could just be tainted by tournaments in the South, but that tends to be what I see from most people at tournaments, too.