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.
2012/08/17 21:43:31
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Captain Avatar wrote:It seems to me that GW has been waging a systematic war against competitive 40k gameplay. When you combine a very *meh* non-competitive 6th ed release, increased imbalance between the factions and then add their recent move to stop the tourney friendly Army Builder...to me it just seems that GW is treating the concepts of balanced competition as if it was somehow politically incorrect or morally wrong.
IMO, 40K is turning into an elitist hobby with no real game behind it. Cinematic and Narrative is not a game, it is a movie and/or a book. And we all know that there are much better sources for both, movies and books, than what GW publishes.
My question is this:
If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
Maybe some TO's will simply refuse to run 6th (or later anti-competitive editions) tournaments and go with some previous rule set or combination of rule sets.
People, you don't have to play the latest GW rules dump just because they want you to!
"Word to your moms, I came to drop bombs." -- House of Pain
2012/08/17 21:45:12
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
GW is only hurting themselves by arbitrarily separating us into Casual and Competitive gamers and then damning the competitive gamers.
Forgive me, how exactly are Gw seperating the gaming community into casual and competitve gamers and then hurting the competive players?
Between a pretty uncompetitive rule set and a lack of GW supported tournaments I think it is safe to say GW doesn't like competitive players very much.
2012/08/17 22:14:06
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I agree on their non-support of big tournaments, but the rules themselves I think are much better for competitive play.
Randomness is important, especially where they put it, it allows the players to adapt to a changing battlefield environment. The best general is he who can do this the best.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Overall, as a non-competitive player, I like 6th edition. While the random objectives, mysterious terrain, and archetype artifacts do add a small sense of potentially unfair randomness, it certainly makes things more interesting! The bigger problem I see is in individual army codexes, where everyone keeps getting better and better, at some point, the armies are going to need to be nerfed.
The big point though is those who want to keep playing will make their own house rules to circumvent any trickery gws lays out in future updates, and people will keep playing and having fun in some form or another.
Khador
2012/08/17 23:21:56
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Why do we think tourneys are dead? From the sources I've seen most TOs think that with a few minor tweaks and set terrain 6e is fairly tournament friendly and a lot of fun.
Needing 3 house rules and a few new missions hardly makes a system uncompetitive.
DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+ Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0
QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2 One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners
2012/08/17 23:29:49
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
At the end of the day 40k still has an amazing fluff for those that desire, and leaves room for you to fill your own blanks if wanted. People will always play it, and tournaments might become more exclusive or centralized at a certain location, but it will remain. I was born in 91, and didn't pick it up until 2011. I'm obsessed with it, blaring through novels, and when my 2 kids grow up, if 40k is still around they will receive a gifted army of their choice. My point, it's fun, can draw in people of many backgrounds, and is a fun game to play, not a console troll fest. i don't see it dying out anytime soon.
2012/08/17 23:48:02
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
don_mondo wrote:And while I wouldn't quite say that GW is waging war against tournament play, they are certainly being non-supportive of it. Sure, some GW stores and even a few of their retail specialists might support a tourney, if asked and prodded. but GW corporate. Nope. Too bad, cause the old GW US GTs were a blast, drew in lots of new players and spurred sales as people built new armies from the ground up to participate. Take a look at the success of the NOVA Open if you doubt that there is a market for tournament play.
GW Australia canned support for the tournament circuit here a few years ago and while it's a little disappointing, the tournament scene itself barely even noticed. And on the plus side, there's no longer GW restrictions at any events which really opens up the field for conversions and counts-as models.
Redbeard wrote:If you look at various games along a continuum, at one end you get perfectly random games, like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders, and at the other end, you get perfectly non-random games like Chess, Checkers or Go. In a perfectly random game, each player has an equal chance to win. In a non-random game, player skill will determine the outcome. I can lose at Candyland to a 4-year-old, but I cannot beat a Grandmaster in Chess, ever.
It's not a perfectly scalable relationship though. Where, for example, does poker fit in?
I would argue that being good at a perfectly non-random game like Chess requires very little more than knowledge. Since it is completely non-random, if one player knows more about how the pieces can/will move, then that player will win. A good chess player knows the best way to respond to every move his opponent makes, and the best way for his opponent to respond to every move he makes, and after only a couple of moves can already see the outcome of the game.
That encyclopaedic knowledge of how the pieces move translates directly into an ability to predict the outcome of the game, despite not knowing the opponents moves.
After each move, the good chess player can look at the board, and see the thousands of potential outcomes. He can narrow down what moves he has to make in order to reach a favourable outcome, and further narrow that down by what moves will make it difficult or impossible to win. He then moves his pieces, and wins.
I would argue that further to that, being good at chess doesn't require someone to be good at risk evaluation, resource management, or resource allocation. Or to be more accurate, that to depend on those skills when playing chess is not playing it at it's highest level, and a player that depends on those skills will reliable lose to a good player.
Once we introduce a measured dose of random elements, we require other skills to be involved. We require players to start evaluating risk, managing and allocating their resources. We give players the opportunity to use skills other than pure knowledge of the board and the pieces. If we use chess as an example: Currently, moving a piece into an opponents piece results in the opponents piece being taken. The chess player knows this, and has no need to give the matter any more thought. But what if the result was dice based? What if a rook needed a 2+ to remove a pawn for example? Suddenly the chess player has more to consider. He has to evaluate the risk, he has to think about how he stacks the board, since he may waste several pieces trying to take an enemy one, and he has to think about what pieces he uses to attack the enemy, as each will have different rolls required.
At this point we haven't reduced the impact of a players skill on the game, we've simply broadened our definition of 'skill'.
However, too many random elements removes the ability of the player to control their pieces and, as you observe, player skill no longer has any impact on the game.
The debate about 6th edition then centres around: How much random is too much? This thread in particular makes the assumption that there is too many random elements in 6th edition (I disagree) and that GW have deliberately implemented those random elements in order to eliminate competitive play.
Tournaments are a useful (although not entirely accurate) tool to use when we discuss random elements in the rules. Some people insist that the game is totally random, and can be decided simply by rolling the dice.
If that were the case, then all tournament results would also be totally random. We can see that they are not, and that people that score well in tournaments do so consistently across multiple tournaments over time.
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?"
2012/08/18 00:45:00
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Sephyr wrote:Also, for those going "competitive players just want to ROFLstomp everyone 24/7!", keep in mind that necron airforce and the Vendetta-backed IG aegis gunline, who are akin to spiting in the other guy's face in casual friendly games, are brought to you by the supposedly beer&pretzly new metagame.
.
This is a problem with players not the edition. Hell, in 5th ed I could run 9-12 razorbacks but I didn't. In this edition you can run 9 fliers. Notice the only people who are doing it are not the "for fun" gamers. They are the WAAC gamers (note I did not say competitive because WAAC != every competitive gamer).
Razorbacks were good, but not THATgood. And you'd be offering a LOT of kill points to Necrons, Salmanders, IG and other shooty armies with all those razorbacks and rhinos. Flyers, on the other hand, are much safer to spam: they are the hardest targets in the game, tossing everyine down to sub-ork levels of accuracy. There's a difference.
And yes, it's people that abuse the loopholes, but that means nothing. If the system lets itself be gamed so powerfully, it is flawed. Back in World of Warcraft, when they introduced Death Knights and they were severely overpowered enough to face 3 equally-geared enemies and come out on top, they didn't go "Well, some people will abuse the mechanics, what can you do. Some types, huh?" They fixed it in a few months because it detracts from everyone else's game. In a way, it cheats: it lets gamers of casual skill put out a performance worthy of 'competitve' WAAC people based solely on existing imbalances.
In Boxing matches, you actually get paid to take a dive and make the other guy look good.
In Warhammer 40K, you're expected to pay cash out of your pocket for the privilege of having Marines and IG trample all over your Xenos/Chaos.
2012/08/18 01:27:23
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
I don't see the randomness in 6th Edition as randomness just for the sake of being random. It's risk and reward. Everything in 6th from allies, to preparing for/including fliers, to mysterious objectives, and psychic power charts is all risk and reward.
Managing risk is a skill.
2012/08/18 01:56:59
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Kaldor and Flake have the right points, you have to be able to manage the risk and randomness. Aside from that, you can skip a lot of it. Don't like the psychic tables? Don't roll on them, take codex powers. Don't like mysterious terrain? Don't go in it. The only random thing is the rolls, and that can't change. Being a good player is about managing all these things and winning regardless.
Or you can do like my friends and I, and fill the board with mysterious terrain just for kicks to see how badly we get screwed. Random can be a lot of fun if you're not too serious about it.
Khador
2012/08/18 02:24:15
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Flake wrote:I don't see the randomness in 6th Edition as randomness just for the sake of being random. It's risk and reward. Everything in 6th from allies, to preparing for/including fliers, to mysterious objectives, and psychic power charts is all risk and reward.
Managing risk is a skill.
The random elements in 6th ed leave little control in player's hands, so there is actually very little of this "risk management" that you're talking about, most risks are averted the moment you change your tactic from 5th ed to 6th ed, but I wouldn't call that "risk management", more just "adapting to a new edition". But let's begin with warlord traits table, would you build a list around a certain trait? Of course not, because if you didn't get that trait, your list falls apart, so the best course of action here is to ignore it, and there you have it, risk averted. How about random charge distance? Do some numbers crunching, find out the maximum safe distance you could declare a charge at, then do it everytime, risk averted. It's not exactly tactical when the best take is simply to ignore it and play.
A game should have some random elements, but not over-the-top, right now, 6th ed is touching that line, some might say it's well over it.
That said, I'm not totally against the random elements added, assault distance is the only one I'm against, but that's more because that my DE lost the mobility advantage, everyone can charge the same distance, fleet on average gives us 1" further than everyone else. Mystery terrains, mystery objectives, etc kinda add to the fun.
To the poster who posted the "perfect imbalance" video, yes, in a game design sense, this might be the intention, but I wouldn't think so. However, let's leave conspiracy theory(GW is doing this to force people to buy the new army) aside, people have to pay to be a loser in this game, people are paying so poster boys players can feel like big man because the game basically says "If you're playing poster boys, you automatically win, congrats, now go teabag your opponent!", that's pretty bad design, the imbalance should be minimal(ie not everyone has 360 degree arc of fire flyers, or flyers that can disembark while zooming, but every army should have a way to counter that). Do you see other competitive games having such lopsided balance? Take SF4 for example, it started with some characters being outright impossible to beat, but by SSF4, they have brought those characters down to everyone's level, and by SSF4 AE, more balancing, finally by SSF4 AE2012, the game is mostly balanced, even playing bottom tier Dan could beat top tier characters, there isn't one character that is nigh impossible to beat. But even if video games were to use such lopsided setting, the point here is that you wouldn't have to pay again should you wish to play the winning faction.
On topic: I don't think GW is literally on a hunt to murder competitive gameplay, they're just doing what they can to stay afloat, and looking like they're succeeding as people seem to welcome the random elements.
Question: Did 5th ed tournaments require the TO to use homebrew rules to add some competitive elements to the game??
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/18 02:30:29
2012/08/18 03:41:54
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Baronyu wrote:The random elements in 6th ed leave little control in player's hands
I disagree. To use random charge distance as an example: I can charge with units that have a better chance. I can charge from within 2". I can stack the area with multiple units so that if one fails I still have others. I can take an extra turn to close the gap. I can choose units in my army that will not be as exposed to shooting/can close the gap more reliably.
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?"
2012/08/18 04:50:27
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Some Throne-Forsaken Battlefield on the other side of the Galaxy
DeffDred wrote:Games are not competitive. People are.
Well, games can encourage competition in certain ways. For example, 40K has had many overpowered builds over the years, and when there are builds that win more than others, that encourages people to use those builds and be more competitive. However, people still have a greater effect on how competitive a game is than the game itself, I'd say.
289th Descaal Janissaries: around 2kpts
(no games played so far)
Imperial Fists 4th company (Work In Progress)
Warhost of Biel-Tan (Coming Soon!)
scarletsquig wrote: The high prices also make the game more cinematic, just like going to the cinema!
Some Flies Are Too Awesome For The Wall.
2012/08/18 04:53:45
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Testify wrote:People who compete in 40k tournaments will get laid?
Just kidding. That'll never happen.
Thats what you think
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
DeffDred wrote:Games are not competitive. People are.
Well, games can encourage competition in certain ways. For example, 40K has had many overpowered builds over the years, and when there are builds that win more than others, that encourages people to use those builds and be more competitive. However, people still have a greater effect on how competitive a game is than the game itself, I'd say.
That's still not the game being competitive. That's competitive people finding a way to be competitive with the army list.
2012/08/18 05:10:19
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.
They do, the center is the people who have had the list or army before it turned into cheese (My upcoming vlak vendetta spam is going to be cheesy this edition, and it irks me because I just did it for the mobility of the list)
DA 4000 points W/L/D 6e 3/2/0
IG 1500 points W/L/D 6e 0/2/0
And 100% Primed!
2012/08/18 05:23:48
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.
They do, the center is the people who have had the list or army before it turned into cheese (My upcoming vlak vendetta spam is going to be cheesy this edition, and it irks me because I just did it for the mobility of the list)
I'm sure you're a cool guy and all, but Vendettas were hardly "balanced" in 5th Although I know what you mean. I started collecting Tzeentch Deamons the day before 6th came out. Suddenly my MCs were devestating.
Then a few weeks later, Flamers became one of the most powerful units in the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/18 05:24:36
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
2012/08/18 07:00:17
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:People will continue having fun, the tournament players will continue the wailing in their tourneys, and life will go on.
This.
I play for fun, and I sometimes play in tournis but i dont enjoy them unless some effort is made with comp, painting and sportsmanship. Comp ensures that you see lots of different lists instead of the routine spam. Painting scores are nice because they encourage a rudimentary painting effort which really makes the game more fun for me (seeing a painted army is always better than some primer black or grey legion). And i think sportsmanship is nice since the game is meant to be fun. The best games i have had are the ones that were a good contest, played in good spirits and between nicely painted armies on a well put together table.
The worst games i have had have been facing very competative people who merely want to win. They purchase only the most broken, undercosted combinations of units. Hastily glue them together and then after beating the snot out of a few people who are collectors or gamers, proceed to brag about their skill with the net list they fielded and how their codex is so good. Hmm.
If competitive game play disappears and the competitive lot moves to warmachine or some other game, thats fine with me.
Pestilence Provides.
2012/08/18 08:36:53
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
What are they supposed to be accomplishing? A fair and balanced game where everyone can win? Have you seen what happened to MtG when tournament play is now the only real priority?
Grow up, get a life, and try and have fun. Games aren't made to be stressful...
2012/08/18 09:23:25
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
We wrote:The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.
It's worth remembering that the 80s and the 90s didn't have as many alternatives to tabletop W40K as the 2000s.
2012/08/18 10:28:27
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
I love it. This thread shows the true scope of dysfunction within the player base that GW has fostered. At this moment I have, for the first time in my many years of playing, a negative opinion of my fellow casual gamers. This negative opinion of my fellow payers is due to their having rushed to an innacurate conclusion and an overly hostile position(and posts) that says volumes about how unpleasant it would be like to game with some of them.
I would like all posters to note that I did not call into question the Casual Fluffer versus WAAC player and only brought up tournies in reference to the AB due to its regular use by TO's to help prevent cheating. You, the community did that all by yourselves. I have only replied as to how I see GW waging a war against competitive play.
To help clarify matters, here are some formulas for you guys:
Competitive gameplay /= tournament play
&
Competitive players /= waac players
instead
Competitive play = a game where either a victor, a loser or a draw is determined at the end of the match/battle.(Nothing more, nothing less)
So many of you are jumping to assumed conclusions rather than asking for clarification.
Here is some clarification:
Spoiler:
Wardragoon wrote:
1) No real argument, but in all fairness GW is going for the casual gamer not the hardcore tournament gamers, if it was always aimed for competitive then we would not see useless units in every codex.
a)From what I have experienced games are actually shorter, the randomness in some ways sucks in others its a boon, inconsistent FAQs is how GW operates
2) Don't be suprised if those factions that got screwed get major buffs where they no longer need allies, but put them on par with alllied armies
3)If only there was access to this strange thing that printed out sheets of paper that have been typed hmmmm.....
4)Its a selective market, and gosh darnit what would we do if the GW employees werent able to buy their Ipads. (in all seriousness here, the pricing turns off so many people that GW may actually do better if they lowered the prices)
5) I don't think GW will push it so far as it is no longer regarded as a game.
Thank you for one of the better and on topic posts. Now in reply to yours:
1)The point that I am getting at is, "what if there is a return to the rogue trader style role-playing but even more so?".
1a)Yours and my experience may not be that different. Turns are tasking much longer but people are getting tabled in the early game due to imbalance within the factions and the system as a whole. We are talking about players of equal ability yet one is getting tabled in turn 3 due to the systems randomness and faction imbalance.
2)I wont be. Though I think the imbalances and fotm armies are only going to exasperate the situation. I feel this way due to GW's track record concerning faction balance and codex creep.
3)Ha....ha....ha.... you so funny. Seriously, I can get by without AB, it is just a great conveniance that I will miss if gw continues to push the issue. If they do push the issue, I will take it as another step to remove accurate lists and competitive play.
4)sarcasm noted and I think we pretty much agree.
5)This is the whole point of the thread. The "What if they actually do push it that far?"
motyak wrote:
Captain Avatar wrote:[The point is, that people need to drop all of the assinine competitive players ruin the "game" bs. That is now what this thread is about. The thread is about the game becoming an elitist role-playing system and the impact such will have if GW completely moves in this direction.
Aren't you part of an elitist tournament playing culture then? How can you call out one side as 'bad and if it comes down to them being ascendant then the game is done for' and then call them elitist? Just seems odd.
A swing and a miss. You are so busy trying to be right about something that wasn't said. My above comment was in response to the automatic knee-jerk assumption that either I am a hard-core tourney player or that I was even focused on tournies in the first place.
Remember:
Competitive gameplay /= tournament play
&
Competitive players /= waac players
instead
Competitive play = a game where either a victor, a loser or a draw is determined at the end of the match/battle.(Nothing more, nothing less)
Go back and re-read the original post and you will find that the question is, What if GW removes all competitive elements from the game?.
Yes, I used the "waging war" inflated hyperbole. Why? How better to start a lively discussion on dakka.
As I state elsewhere in this reply, the GW40k developers are playing the game as a role-playing game instead of playtesting the rules for conflicts during development. This is a strong indication of the way they are taking the system. They make use of a battle master (BM) and most of the player skill is sacrificed on the altar of the BMs narrative and cinematic vision.
To me, if they go this route, then there will be no reason to play many of the factions and 40k itself will hold no challenge.
Kaldor wrote:This is a stretch. You've got literally zero evidence to support your theory. No one is trying to wage war against competitive game play.
On a related topic, of the most obnoxious players I've dealt with, almost all fall into the 'friendly' gamer group that refuses to attend tournaments. Tournament players are almost universally (IMO) nice people who are just out to have fun, and even the ultra competitive ones still take a loss with a smile and a laugh.
1)Not that much of a stretch when you read the games day interviews about how the designers play the game.
2)Great way to miss the point and to go off topic. Again, the thread is not about Fluffzies are bad or WAACers are evil. It is about what you think it would mean if GW shifted away from the game completely and made 40k basically a fanboi spank tool for narrative battles that are determined by narrative rather than game play.
Ailaros wrote:
Captain Avatar wrote:If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
So, to the OP, your concern is very well-justified, but it comes from the wrong scope. As in, it's a reasonable argument from a certain viewpoint, but the point of view itself is inaccurate.
You describe 40k as if it was a competitive game that was then invaded by a bunch of non-competitive rules. As if there is a war between two roughly equal factions, when this is not so. A much better analogy would be to say that 40k is a non-competitive game that has a small, stubborn competitive insurgency against which there is a coordinated police action. Not a war.
The thing you've got to know is that 40k never was a seriously competitive game. It isn't a seriously competitive game, and it never will be a seriously competitive game. 40k started as a hobby, with some rules lightly draped over it so that you could actually do something with all those miniatures you were painting. The game continues today as a game of dice where you get to display your miniatures and make up stories about them.
As redbeard notes, 40k isn't a serious competitive game. The results of almost any given action are determined by dice, so really, it's a dice game. It's not quite candyland level of chance-only, but it's way, way closer to candyland than it is to chess.
This is something that competitive gamers always miss. 40k isn't a game of skill, it's a game of chance, with tiny inroads of skill that allow you to set the odds of the dice you're about to roll. If you're taking 40k as a competitive exercise, you're actually missing the point of 40k in the first place. Really, it's you making war on a beer and pretzels dice game, not the other way around.
Thank you for an on topic and clearly stated post. There is food for thought here.
Now, I'd like to hear, "What you think would happen if GW removed all competitive aspects of the game and instead, they made it into narrative role-playing battles where the outcome of the battle is not determined by any player skill but by a third individual that is guiding the narration?".
TheCaptain wrote:
First; have you even played a tournament in 6th? It's just as competitive as ever.
Second; your "war on competitive play" is incredibly abstract. As long as there are two players on opposing sides in ANYTHING, there will be viability for competition.
Yes, I have played. And no, it is not as competitive. The players are still competitive but the system is miles away from being considered suitable for competitive play.
Honestly, I did not care for 5th ed either. It was a tough edition for my Tau, but I played it.
When I got my copy of 6th ed, I loved how GW had returned to tactical movement and was hopeful that we would see lists that had a greater than the sum of their parts synergy.
Then I looked closer and saw that the 5th ed imbalances were still there and in fact, were often worse.
Additionally, They had added increased randomness that hurt assault move based armies, random psychic powers, random leadership traits.
Finally, GW has introduced units that have no effective counter in other armies(Yay, its almost as if we're back to chaos auto-losing to 'nids or DE auto-losing to Harlequins)
"War on competitive play" is not really that abstract if people stop with the knee jerk reactions and maybe read closer or ask for clarification. Its a concept called communication, give it a try some time.
As to what I meant by, "What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?". I mean the following:
When the developers are suppossed to be play teasting they are instead engaging in old rogue trader style narratvie missions that require a third individual to play. Lets call this third individual the battle master or more fittingly the BM. Now the BM exercises a great amount of control over the game, so much so that player skill will have nothing to do with the outcome of the battle. Rather, the battle is decided by what makes for the best narrative or cinematic scene in the BMs mind.
When the developers are engaging in such behavior and when combined with comments from recent interviews, a case can be made that the developers are pushing for the game to become a role playing system that requires a lot of dmodels and dice.
So the question all along has not been about tournaments or fluffy game play. It has been about what happens if GW removes the game/competition aspect from 40K and leaves us with an over-priced elitist role-playing system.
Ratius wrote:
1.
Just because GW have said so themselves does not make it true or applicable. Players/TOs and tourneys adapt as they see fit to rulesets. Always has been, always will. That point proves nothing so far.
As mentioned by other posters, having a more random element to the game does not necessarily take away from competitive play. Claiming otherwise this early into an edition release is hubris.
Inconsistent FAQs have always been around and again players adapt. Im unsure of what you mean by increased bookeeping - random terrain, WL traits? Hardly that time consuming or detremental time wise int the grand scheme of things.
2.
Unbalance? Perhaps. Early edition unbalance? Of course but this will be rectified going forward as more FAQs, Codicies and releases get made. Will it ever be perfect? No, its GW but once again its been like that in other editions and does not back up the warmaking on competitive play hypothesis.
3.
I cant comment on personal conditions like yours but tournament after torunament have gone off without a hitch with hand written lists and no AB printouts. Players will adapt and move on. I guarantee if AB does get nerfed by Christmas people wont even remember it.
Its a loss, sure, I love AB but not a gamebreaker.
4.
But that wont stop players collecting, ebaying, 2nd handing models or discount stores. I dont agree with the GW price hikes in many cases but its a sales trend to maximise proifit, not ruin competitive play or tournament environments.
BTW, I love the nebulous anti-tourney player shot of "It being widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite". So, is it widely held or is it in some circles?
I was trying to be polite, as demonstrated perfectly in this thread as soon as competitive play is mentioned, it immediatley divides the player base into the "friendluies" and WWACs. I long ago gave up picking a side and can see both point of views.
I was trying to say that in some quarters (aptly shown within this thread) some competitive players are seen as elitiiest.
You knew what I meant, poking holes in my linguistic expression of the point is disingenuous tbh.
I can see that you feel strongly however so will probably just leave it at that and politely disagree with your opinions. I dont believe GW is trying to kill comp/tourney play whatsoever.
1)Actually, it is very true/applicable if the company and its designer/developers are making a strong move to take 40k in the indicated direction.
1a)TO's will at some point find it too much hassle and will give up. Though that is not the point of the thread.
1b)Your belief in the status quo does not stand up to the test of time.
1c)Not hubris, observation.
1d)I understand that some do not play very often. What I meant by increased book keeping is- In game effects that affect a units base stat line for the rest of the game. I don't like having to fiddle with extra markers or keeping notes on which tank had its AV lowered by scarabs or other similar effects.
2)Unbalance rectified? GW has never done so before. If anything the unbalance gets worse as an edition progresses. In fact, I'd venture to say that this is the most unbalanced ruleset GW has ever published.
In the past, a new edition meant a bit of zeroing out on things that had gotten out of hand in the previous edition.
2a)Ahh, I see the problem. You are hung up on the warmaking inflated hyperbole statement I used to spark interest in the thread. Whether I call it a war or a systematic push to remove the competitive elements from the game does not matter. They come down to the same thing, that my question was "What if" GW removes the competitive elements from 40K to turn it into a narrative role-playing system where the outcome of the battle is determined by a third person we can call the BM(battlemaster)?".
3) And more tournies (and casual games for that matter) have been ruined by innaccurate(both accidental and deliberate) hand-written lists than have gone smoothly with said same lists. Again, the wish for clearly written rules and army lists does not diminish the fun in any manner, I can't understand why some believe otherwise.
4) The point is that with a game system GWs stuff is over-priced. If you remove the game and replace it with a narrative story telling system, then the models are even more over-priced. A role-playing system for only the elite as it were.
Until I saw the Fluffzies reaction to my question, I had an on the fence approach. After seeing the knee-jerk reactions by the CGM, I am now leaning toward the competitive players who have remained fairly calm.
And no, I did not know what you meant. you did not use orkmoticons and when taken as written, your statement was self-contridicting to the point of being evasive.
Yes, we can agree to disagree, though that was not the point of the thread. The point is, "What if" GW moves the game to being like how the developers play it. Where all competitive elements and challenges are gone and only story telling remains.
Mr Morden wrote:
Captain Avatar wrote:
The point that I am encouraging people to consider is that a removal of competitive game play would affect all "players". This is not about the WAAC crowd, this is about GW moving away from a game and towards a narrative role playing system. (As I get older, I'm beginning to view role playing systems as not really being games but more as exercisies in creativity and story-telling.)
poeple need to drop all of the assinine competitive players ruin the "game" bs. That is now what this thread is about. The thread is about the game becoming an elitist role-playing system and the impact such will have if GW completely moves in this direction.
I never said Competitive gamers ruin the game - I was replying to your statement that if the game is less competitive it will die........somehow. My point is that GW seem to want a fun game for as many people as possible (and hence make more money) making lists that appeal to competitive gamers only does not do this. Impact that it will have if the game is more fun - err more people play it and GW makes more money...............
I suggest that if you are going to keep calling anyone who does not like tournaments "Elitist rpgers" then you have to accept the counter accusation of Elitist Tournement players........
Again I just talked about people I had met and played with - the "Grand tournament player " at our club is no fun to play against - he gets rules wrong (and wont admit it - just says "I am a grand tournament player I KNOW the rules" even though he does not), has only a "ubber" army that he likes clubbing new players with.
6th ed is not perfect by any stretch but it seems to be heading to the fun zone more than the 5th edition
1)You are making a fallacious argument/assumption that competitive play /= fun.
1a)My "question" was, What if GW removes all competitive aspects of the game and only leaves an over-costed role-playing system in its place? A system that requires a third individual to be a BM(battle master) that directs(controls) the battle and the outcome is determined by what the BM views as most cinematic.
2)Never called anyone an elitist RPGer. Said that the game is headed toward being an elititist role-playing system. If you can not understand the difference here then I will have to assume that you are either deliberately misreading or are so emotional on the issue that further discussion is pointless. Though I do find you trying to label me as a tourney elitist very amusing.
3)I will see your grand tourney player and raise you 2 rage quitting players (1 BA and 1 'Nids)when I killed their big deathstar/mc units with my tau by bottom of turn 3. Then add a casual player with cheater dice to the mix and you have what I have seen in just the last month. My point, TFG can be a WAAC, a Fluffer a rules lawyer.
LordOfTheSloths wrote:Maybe some TO's will simply refuse to run 6th (or later anti-competitive editions) tournaments and go with some previous rule set or combination of rule sets.
People, you don't have to play the latest GW rules dump just because they want you to!
1)If it gets to be to much trouble, I definitely see TO's just dropping 40k.
2)Yes, quitting 40k is definetly an option. An increasingly attractive option at that, when considering the amount of poor sportsmanship that you see these days.
3) Neither of your statements are on topic. The Topic is, "What if gw removes all competitive aspects of the game and leaves in their place a role-playing system where the battles outcome is determined by the whims of a BM(battle master)?".
TheDamnedOne wrote:At the end of the day 40k still has an amazing fluff
*snip*
I'm obsessed with it, blaring through novels, and when my 2 kids grow up, if 40k is still around they will receive a gifted army of their choice.
Uh yeah. 40Ks fluff is under-developed, inconsistent and not the topic. The topic is," What would it mean to you if the system lost all of its game aspects and just became an over-priced role-playing system?".
Flake wrote:I don't see the randomness in 6th Edition as randomness just for the sake of being random. It's risk and reward. Everything in 6th from allies, to preparing for/including fliers, to mysterious objectives, and psychic power charts is all risk and reward.
Managing risk is a skill.
Risk management is not the same thing as gambling.
Random dice rolls are gambling.
Risk management is about minimizing risks.
A Risk management specialist would then avoid gambling.
Ergo, risk management would dictate that the general would never engage in the battle in the first place if faced with the level of gambling that is present in the 40k system.
2012/08/18 10:35:17
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Captain Avatar wrote:Not that much of a stretch when you read the games day interviews about how the designers play the game.
No, it's a complete stretch. You've got nothing to back up your theory.
Summarise your position, and support it with evidence, and we can have ourselves a debate. At the moment your just throwing around a whole bunch of opinions as if they were facts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alkasyn wrote:
We wrote:The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.
It's worth remembering that the 80s and the 90s didn't have as many alternatives to tabletop W40K as the 2000s.
I think 40Ks main draw card is it's unique and established background. And in that regard, there are still no real alternatives to 40K.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/18 10:35:27
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?"
2012/08/18 11:22:24
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
We wrote:The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.
It's worth remembering that the 80s and the 90s didn't have as many alternatives to tabletop W40K as the 2000s.
Battletech was out in 1984, and while I didn't start it at that time, was a fun game.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:What are they supposed to be accomplishing? A fair and balanced game where everyone can win? Have you seen what happened to MtG when tournament play is now the only real priority?
WH40K does actually remind me more and more of those collectible card games. Not the shoddy rules (the card games are often pretty tight) but the way there's always the next expansion set with new powers and if you can't afford it you're screwed.
2012/08/18 11:33:25
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
1)You are making a fallacious argument/assumption that competitive play /= fun.
1a)My "question" was, What if GW removes all competitive aspects of the game and only leaves an over-costed role-playing system in its place? A system that requires a third individual to be a BM(battle master) that directs(controls) the battle and the outcome is determined by what the BM views as most cinematic.
Your assumptions were:
You state that GW is "waging war" - how is that not overly emotional and inflamatory?
You stated that the Hobby was becoming elitest by actually catering for non tournament players - again over the top statement.2)
Never called anyone an elitist RPGer. Said that the game is headed toward being an elititist role-playing system. If you can not understand the difference here then I will have to assume that you are either deliberately misreading or are so emotional on the issue that further discussion is pointless. Though I do find you trying to label me as a tourney elitist very amusing.
I did not lable you - you have did that all by yourself - best read your own statement back to yourself here.
I said if you are going to label people / a gaming style even as elitest then it cuts both ways and as you know veyr well many people consider the mainly tournament players as elitest who disdain non competative army lists and those who use them as ametaurs. Also note I did not use the somewhat imflamatory WAAC abreviations etc
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
You state that GW is "waging war" - how is that not overly emotional and inflamatory?
You stated that the Hobby was becoming elitest by actually catering for non tournament players - again over the top statement.[/color]2)
Could it be he was employing a metaphor or otherwise colorful language? We're not writing quarterly reports here, you know.
And it could be just me, but a game favoring those with the cash to buy more multiples of $45-60 models around the cheap 100-point mark than the other guy leans both toward elitism and anti-competitiveness.
In Boxing matches, you actually get paid to take a dive and make the other guy look good.
In Warhammer 40K, you're expected to pay cash out of your pocket for the privilege of having Marines and IG trample all over your Xenos/Chaos.
Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 
Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 
Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 
Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 
Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 
Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 
Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 
Crimson Tide 59-4-0 
Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 
Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 
BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 
IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 
RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 
Imperial Fists 4th company (Work In Progress)
Warhost of Biel-Tan (Coming Soon!)
W/L/D 6e 0/2/0
