Switch Theme:

TIme to drop the ITC mission pack. Chapter Approved deserves attention.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Oh this again?

ITC missions are bad (IMHO). The scoring is fine. So is, arguably, the first floor LOS blocking rule. It's just the missions that are problematic, doubly so because the AOS missions are good enough but 40k are not and need special missions to "fix" them for tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.
The first one definitely. The second most likely depending on circumstances but likely yes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/23 21:48:43


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.


So everyone should just approach the game from the perspective of "I had my fun, and that's all that matters."?

 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Sim-Life wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.


So everyone should just approach the game from the perspective of "I had my fun, and that's all that matters."?


I don't know who you define as an donkey-cave. If your argument is that the game is designed to be a kitchen-table fun afternoon where people don't have to do prep work or analysis to produce close and interesting games isn't that an argument that as-written points and balance are more important? Or is your argument that the rules don't really matter that much and we should all be playing make-believe instead of playing a game because clear and consistent rules to resolve conflict in games of make-believe aren't "fun"? Is the donkey-cave the person who bought Grey Knights and grumbles about losing every game or is the donkey-cave the person who bought Iron Hands and crushes everyone else every game? How does your "don't play with the donkey-caves" theory prevent people from being donkey-caves when the rules of the game turn everyone into donkey-caves?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
...But the thing about not playing in tournaments is that you can choose not to play the donkey-caves (unless you're Karol etc etc). Then if EVERYONE won't play the donkey-caves eventually they might go "Am I the donkey-cave?"


Is the donkey-cave in this situation the person who says "I'm just playing my army, stop whining and get better/buy different models!" or the person who says "I want to play my army but I can't because yours is OP, stop playing your army and buy different models!"?

Just curious.


So everyone should just approach the game from the perspective of "I had my fun, and that's all that matters."?


I don't know who you define as an donkey-cave. If your argument is that the game is designed to be a kitchen-table fun afternoon where people don't have to do prep work or analysis to produce close and interesting games isn't that an argument that as-written points and balance are more important? Or is your argument that the rules don't really matter that much and we should all be playing make-believe instead of playing a game because clear and consistent rules to resolve conflict in games of make-believe aren't "fun"? Is the donkey-cave the person who bought Grey Knights and grumbles about losing every game or is the donkey-cave the person who bought Iron Hands and crushes everyone else every game? How does your "don't play with the donkey-caves" theory prevent people from being donkey-caves when the rules of the game turn everyone into donkey-caves?


It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?


For me, a donkey-cave is someone who, for whatever reason, makes playing the game not fun. That's not a particularly helpful definition, though, since what makes the game "not fun" for me might be the thing that makes the game fun for someone else.

I guess, given that, I'd say a true donkey-cave is someone who doesn't care about whether or not their opponent is having fun.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




 AnomanderRake wrote:
How do you define "donkey-cave"?


"Failing the Voight-Kampff test"
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time. I guess I'm in a minority that I want my opponent to have a good time as well when I play a game?

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If your argument is that the game is designed to be a kitchen-table fun afternoon where people don't have to do prep work or analysis to produce close and interesting games isn't that an argument that as-written points and balance are more important?


Thank you. I hate this idea that balance isn't important for casual play. Two players getting into an argument over whether player B keeps losing because player A's army is overpowered or because player B just sucks is not a positive, friendly, fun interaction.
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.


This. This says what I was trying to say better than I said it.
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Octopoid wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?


For me, a donkey-cave is someone who, for whatever reason, makes playing the game not fun. That's not a particularly helpful definition, though, since what makes the game "not fun" for me might be the thing that makes the game fun for someone else.

I guess, given that, I'd say a true donkey-cave is someone who doesn't care about whether or not their opponent is having fun.


Hypothetical scenario (Sim-Life, this is for you too): Two people decide to start playing 40k. They go out, decide on which models they think are cool, buy a bunch of stuff, paint it up, bring it in, play a game. One of them decided Knights looked cool and the other decided Deathwatch looked cool so the Knight player casually rolls over the Deathwatch player. Neither one of them had any fun.

Now. Freeze-frame. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Deathwatch player for picking a weak army? Is it a fault of the Knight player for picking an army the Deathwatch don't have the weapons to counter? Who's responsible for going out and buying a different army to make the game more fun next time? Or is it perhaps the fault of the rules writers, who told them that 2,000pts of Deathwatch are capable of playing a game with 2,000pts of Knights?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?


For me, a donkey-cave is someone who, for whatever reason, makes playing the game not fun. That's not a particularly helpful definition, though, since what makes the game "not fun" for me might be the thing that makes the game fun for someone else.

I guess, given that, I'd say a true donkey-cave is someone who doesn't care about whether or not their opponent is having fun.


Hypothetical scenario (Sim-Life, this is for you too): Two people decide to start playing 40k. They go out, decide on which models they think are cool, buy a bunch of stuff, paint it up, bring it in, play a game. One of them decided Knights looked cool and the other decided Deathwatch looked cool so the Knight player casually rolls over the Deathwatch player. Neither one of them had any fun.

Now. Freeze-frame. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Deathwatch player for picking a weak army? Is it a fault of the Knight player for picking an army the Deathwatch don't have the weapons to counter? Who's responsible for going out and buying a different army to make the game more fun next time? Or is it perhaps the fault of the rules writers, who told them that 2,000pts of Deathwatch are capable of playing a game with 2,000pts of Knights?


Why does someone need to be at fault? Why can't they agree to both make some changes to their armies and try again? Or agree to not play each other and find someone else to play with? Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?

In this case, the fault lies with the system, if fault there must be, but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well. Neither one is a donkey-cave in this scenario, but neither one is totally blameless, either.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle





In My Lab

But why should the players be expected to know about the existence of hard counters and crap armies, let alone which is which? When the game implies, at the very least, that 2,000 points is a good match for 2,000 points.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why should the players be expected to know about the existence of hard counters and crap armies, let alone which is which? When the game implies, at the very least, that 2,000 points is a good match for 2,000 points.


They shouldn't be expected to be masters of the game's nuances, but they should be expected to do some research into a game they're about to play, especially one with as high a buy-in as 40K. Maybe look at some netlists, maybe talk to some existing players, maybe even generalize based on previous gaming experience (if any).

If what you're looking for is a reason to blame GW, feel free to take that reason. I'm not going to say their points system couldn't use some... tweaking, let's say. But at the same time, every game is going to have a learning curve, and so players should expect said curve. If they don't do their due diligence, then some of the blame (again, if we have to blame anyone) must fall on them.
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Octopoid wrote:
...Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?...


EXACTLY.

Why does GW say "Hey, guys, we've written a game with points values intended to determine what two evenly-matched armies should look like!" if you still need to negotiate with your opponent about what army book you're allowed to use?

The situation created by GW where there is no functional objective way of making sure there is a balanced game (most games have balanced points, balanced scenarios, etc.) forces people into situations where you get subjectively labeled an "donkey-cave" for not accommodating your subjective experience, or get to label other people as "donkey-caves" for not accommodating your experience, because there is no way of figuring out what a good and interesting game is going to be outside of peoples' subjective experience.

Which means you have the choice of arguing about what should/shouldn't be on the table and risk being labeled "the donkey-cave", nodding mournfully and saying "yes maybe I should buy a different army" while seething inside at other people being donkey-caves and forcing you to go spend vast amounts of money on new stuff, or quitting and getting labeled "the donkey-cave" for not playing along with what everyone else is having fun with.

Which is why I say that the nature of the rules forces everyone to be an donkey-cave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Octopoid wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
But why should the players be expected to know about the existence of hard counters and crap armies, let alone which is which? When the game implies, at the very least, that 2,000 points is a good match for 2,000 points.


They shouldn't be expected to be masters of the game's nuances, but they should be expected to do some research into a game they're about to play, especially one with as high a buy-in as 40K. Maybe look at some netlists, maybe talk to some existing players, maybe even generalize based on previous gaming experience (if any)...


How much of your prior gaming experience involved being told "Oh, you bought the wrong army book, you're screwed"? Do any other games work this way? I've never run across one.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/23 22:40:10


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?...


EXACTLY.

Why does GW say "Hey, guys, we've written a game with points values intended to determine what two evenly-matched armies should look like!" if you still need to negotiate with your opponent about what army book you're allowed to use?

The situation created by GW where there is no functional objective way of making sure there is a balanced game (most games have balanced points, balanced scenarios, etc.) forces people into situations where you get subjectively labeled an "donkey-cave" for not accommodating your subjective experience, or get to label other people as "donkey-caves" for not accommodating your experience, because there is no way of figuring out what a good and interesting game is going to be outside of peoples' subjective experience.

Which means you have the choice of arguing about what should/shouldn't be on the table and risk being labeled "the donkey-cave", nodding mournfully and saying "yes maybe I should buy a different army" while seething inside at other people being donkey-caves and forcing you to go spend vast amounts of money on new stuff, or quitting and getting labeled "the donkey-cave" for not playing along with what everyone else is having fun with.

Which is why I say that the nature of the rules forces everyone to be an donkey-cave.


Well, sounds like you've got yourself a position there. Maybe you should just not play Warhammer 40K?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
[How much of your prior gaming experience involved being told "Oh, you bought the wrong army book, you're screwed"? Do any other games work this way? I've never run across one.


It's happened a time or two. I bought the Monster Manual for AD&D before I knew what the game really was, and was told I needed a different book to play it. Fair enough, my fault, I didn't do my due diligence. At the end of the day though, I still had a fun book with some cool monsters in it.

Maybe instead of looking for someone to blame, you should focus on finding out how to have fun with what you already have? Just a thought.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/23 22:43:07


 
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
...It's amazing, I've managed to play games my entire adult life and have only run into one or two donkey-caves. And yet, the rules apparently turn everyone into [donkey-caves]? Huh. Maybe I've been the cave in every game all along...


I don't know. I applied a definition of "donkey-cave" that seems consistent with what seems to happen when you ask people to start playing a new game that is wildly out of balance because it seems to me that Sim-Life's suggestion about not playing with the donkey-caves to make them realize they're donkey-caves doesn't account for the fact that people tend to assume other people are the donkey-cave in situations like those he's described. How do you define "donkey-cave"?


For me, a donkey-cave is someone who, for whatever reason, makes playing the game not fun. That's not a particularly helpful definition, though, since what makes the game "not fun" for me might be the thing that makes the game fun for someone else.

I guess, given that, I'd say a true donkey-cave is someone who doesn't care about whether or not their opponent is having fun.


Hypothetical scenario (Sim-Life, this is for you too): Two people decide to start playing 40k. They go out, decide on which models they think are cool, buy a bunch of stuff, paint it up, bring it in, play a game. One of them decided Knights looked cool and the other decided Deathwatch looked cool so the Knight player casually rolls over the Deathwatch player. Neither one of them had any fun.

Now. Freeze-frame. Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Deathwatch player for picking a weak army? Is it a fault of the Knight player for picking an army the Deathwatch don't have the weapons to counter? Who's responsible for going out and buying a different army to make the game more fun next time? Or is it perhaps the fault of the rules writers, who told them that 2,000pts of Deathwatch are capable of playing a game with 2,000pts of Knights?


Do the players know each other? How long? Were they friends prior to starting 40k? Who suggested starting 40k? Are they going to regularly play each other? Does one player have more money than the other? Did either player seek advice on the internet? Will the Knight player insist on continuing to use Knights knowing he will easily beat the DG player? Are they the only players in the area? Do they have an FLGS or similar group? Did they have a lot of terrain? Did they play a scenario or just try to kill each other? Did someone actually teach them how to play or are they learning themselves? Did they make lists or just buy models and plonk them on the table?

I could keep going. Unfortunately social interaction isn't as simple as you'd like to make it out to be. For example a new guy joined our group recently and he's never played an actual game before. Never written a list even. So I wrote a really soft tyranid list full of sub-optimal units. He was playing space marines. If I'd played against him like I would any of our other group members I would have steamrolled him. He wouldn't have fun, I'd feel gakky, both people have a bad time and at least one is potentially out of the game because his first game was awful.

But by the logic of some on here I should have lost because SM are OP currently and Tyranids are near the bottom of the power rankings. It would be nice if everything was as simple as "tournament rankings are the be all and end all" but there are far more factors in a game at play than people like to admit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/23 22:54:16


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





ITC continues to exist only to stroke the egos of the people that run it. If they aren't allowed to have 40k play exactly according to their rules, they aren't interested.

"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




 Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.

Bingo.

If people are engaging with each other in good faith, you will laugh about imbalance and adjust the lists/mission as needed to have fun.

If people aren't engaging in good faith... well, who cares about their opinion anyway?
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

Yoyoyo wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.

Bingo.

If people are engaging with each other in good faith, you will laugh about imbalance and adjust the lists/mission as needed to have fun.

If people aren't engaging in good faith... well, who cares about their opinion anyway?


I lament that I can give you but one Exalt, good sir.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle





In My Lab

Except Wizards of The Coast don’t TELL YOU that you only need the MM to play! (And TSR before them as well.)

While it is labeled a core book, it is one of three-and with those three books, you have functioning game. (At least for 4E and 5E. 3.5 is a mess, and I lack experience with before then.) 40k, if you go off what GW says, can easily result in a game so one-sided as to be non functional.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except Wizards of The Coast don’t TELL YOU that you only need the MM to play! (And TSR before them as well.)

While it is labeled a core book, it is one of three-and with those three books, you have functioning game. (At least for 4E and 5E. 3.5 is a mess, and I lack experience with before then.) 40k, if you go off what GW says, can easily result in a game so one-sided as to be non functional.


So make it functional! Change the missions, have one player play down some points, fiddle with it to make it fun! Or don't play it!

Yes, GW should make a "better" game, where "better" means "more balanced." Feel free to quote me on that. At the same time, if you hate it so much, why play it? And if you don't play it, why do you come to squat on those who do?
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle





In My Lab

I’m not crapping in anyone but GW. I do have fun playing, but here’s the thing-I don’t play SM anymore. They’re too powerful-it’s not fun to play as them.

GW needs to do a better job. We can have fun IN SPITE of GW’s crappy work. But they need to do a better job.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 Octopoid wrote:
Why does someone need to be at fault? Why can't they agree to both make some changes to their armies and try again? Or agree to not play each other and find someone else to play with? Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?


I've seen this play out before.

'Hey, I think your Knights army might be a bit too effective against my Deathwatch, can you change up your army?'

Pick from any one of the following responses:

'I don't think so, I think you may just be playing wrong.'
'Okay.' [swaps a single Knight for a pair of Armigers, same result]
'I don't have any other models, what am I supposed to do?'
'I like my army. Why don't you try taking different models instead?'

You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.

 Octopoid wrote:
In this case, the fault lies with the system, if fault there must be, but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well. Neither one is a donkey-cave in this scenario, but neither one is totally blameless, either.


Nah, I don't think it's at all reasonable to blame players for playing the game as written, running into a massive imbalance caused by the game's writing, and not having fun as a result. They've done literally nothing wrong.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle





In My Lab

Also, if I HAVE offended anyone with my words, I apologize. I don’t mean to be mean to anyone but GW. GW has done crappy work, but those who play it are fine folk, generally.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





 JNAProductions wrote:
I’m not crapping in anyone but GW. I do have fun playing, but here’s the thing-I don’t play SM anymore. They’re too powerful-it’s not fun to play as them.

GW needs to do a better job. We can have fun IN SPITE of GW’s crappy work. But they need to do a better job.


I actually don't disagree but more because I think GW are being too heavy handed in there attempts to make balanced. Indexhammer was pretty balanced but got pretty boring pretty quickly because no of the units made me excited to field. Part of why I dropped 7th was the same thing. Necrons and Nids were just boring to play and I started Warmachine and delighted in finding weird synergies and combos in the armies and to this day I will choose to play my janky Old Witch1 or Rhyas1 list because I love the interactions they have over the tournament lists that have been done to death. Assassinating a character with Old Witch teleporting from across the board will always be more satisfying and fun to me than whatever metalisting nonsense most people will expect at tournaments.

But to drag this thread kicking and screaming back to the topic the CA2019 missions are actually something GW have done a good job on. I haven't had such close game in years and often the game is fairly even until turn 4. Something has to go seriously wrong early on for one player for them to be totally dominated by the opponent in terms of VP.

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Let's not get into the weeds of why 40k is a crappy game. There are a million threads for that.

I'm curious to see people experience with the CA 2019 missions vs the ITC champion mission pack or just your experiences with the CA 2019 missions (as I've played enough ITC to know how it works and where it falls short).

Has anyone actually tried to play a competitive tournament using the CA 2019 missions? Where do you think they promote imbalance/skew? What are your favorite parts and what do you think could be changed?

I've only played casual games with the 2019 missions (no marine supplements). I think they favor fearless hordes at the expense of more expensive troops. They break once you include faction specific maelstrom cards in your deck. Also, not a huge fan of the variable VP (d3 sucks almost as bad as d6). You need troops that can hold objectives and you actually are punished for going first which kind of makes up for how much of your opponents army you can kill with alpha strikes.

No amount of mission massaging can fix the broken mess that GW has made of 8th edition but I find the list building restrictions of the ITC secondaries to be more imbalanced and less fun than the CA 2019 missions with some small tweaks.
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





 catbarf wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
Why does someone need to be at fault? Why can't they agree to both make some changes to their armies and try again? Or agree to not play each other and find someone else to play with? Why didn't they discuss with one another beforehand what models they might bring?


I've seen this play out before.

'Hey, I think your Knights army might be a bit too effective against my Deathwatch, can you change up your army?'

Pick from any one of the following responses:

'I don't think so, I think you may just be playing wrong.'
'Okay.' [swaps a single Knight for a pair of Armigers, same result]
'I don't have any other models, what am I supposed to do?'
'I like my army. Why don't you try taking different models instead?'

You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.

 Octopoid wrote:
In this case, the fault lies with the system, if fault there must be, but some of the fault falls on both players' shoulders as well. Neither one is a donkey-cave in this scenario, but neither one is totally blameless, either.


Nah, I don't think it's at all reasonable to blame players for playing the game as written, running into a massive imbalance caused by the game's writing, and not having fun as a result. They've done literally nothing wrong.


Why not? Do they live somewhere that has Warhammer but no internet access? Do they not use Facebook? Are they Chinese and Google is banned? Who are these mysterious people who live on a desert island with only each other for company and only a single, unstaffed Warhammer store and no internet access?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/23 23:38:55


 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation





Kansas, United States

 catbarf wrote:
You can't reasonably expect casual players to look up the competitive meta, get a comprehensive sense for how each army matches up, develop a competitive perspective for the relative strengths of their units, end up with the exact same perspective so that they don't instantly launch into disagreement (see: any balance thread on Dakka), and then modify their armies as a result. That's way too much to ask.


That's a straw man, and you know it. I CAN reasonably expect casual players to do some research before dropping a hundred or more dollars on a new game, EACH, and then also expect them to come to some kind of agreement about how to have fun playing that game.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: