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.

A.T. wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
Just because the competitive environment doesn't test the skills you value, does not mean it doesn't test skills

If someone is losing because they play daemons but refuse to use three quarters of the codex then fine, or if they are playing guard and insist on nothing but static artillery regardless of the editions/events mission objectives. That's on them.

However 40k is not a deck of cards, many players are locked in economically and being blocked out of a level playingfield as a result is not a measure of skill.

If you think MtG doesn't cost $$$ you've clearly not looked at the cost of a tier-one deck or at any format outside of standard... Also, cards rotate out of the most commonly played competitive format at a set rate making them useless after 2-years unless they are reprinted. It's often more expensive than MtG long term unless you compulsively faction hop and never keep and models between army changes.

Also, is it not equally unfair that [insert sports franchise here] has trouble keeping its star players due to their low personnel budget/high tax rates/cold winters shouldn't all teams be forced to use players of equal skill and have exactly the same access to training facilities and coaches?

A.T. wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
Just because the competitive environment doesn't test the skills you value, does not mean it doesn't test skills

However 40k is not a deck of cards, many players are locked in economically and being blocked out of a level playingfield as a result is not a measure of skill.

That is a barrier to entry and not a part of the actual competition. It's an unfortunate fact of physical nature of reality. You wouldn't complain that literally every professional sport isn't skill testing just because the massive infrastructure required to compete is a barrier to entry for virtually every other human.

I'm an archery instructor for my second job. I competed in Olympic recurve nationally for a couple years. It's not a fault of the game that I can't commit enough time to train and travel to compete. In fact, it's just not a fault. Competing at a high level in anything is not about an even playing field, it's about testing who is the best at the task at hand. The player who wins has some advantage that makes the playing field uneven, even if that advantage is just the skill is being tested: that's why they won. That's not a bug, that's a feature that every competitor buys into. The fact that certain players can maintain their advantage and win consistently is a sign of a good competition, where skills are actually being tested instead of results being derived arbitrarily or randomly.

People who haven't committed themselves to serious competition have tend to have an idealized view of competition. They want a field where everyone has an equal chance to win. That's not what competitors want. They want to accrue advantages, break the playing field, and win consistently. I find that as players (archers in particular, in my case) approach higher competitive levels, this mindset differentiates them. It's not a bad thing to lose, or even not to try. It's not better to be a competitor, it's a different kind goal. But the worst thing, the most self-harmful, is to imagine the competition itself is wrong to preserve one's ego.

Also, an irrelevant aside, it seems like you're not aware of the price of competitive Magic decks. They can pretty quickly run similar costs to a 40k army, which I find actually more insane because my 40k army at least looks great as a display.

 DarkHound wrote:
Also, an irrelevant aside, it seems like you're not aware of the price of competitive Magic decks. They can pretty quickly run similar costs to a 40k army, which I find actually more insane because my 40k army at least looks great as a display.

The average cost for outright buying a full playset of the latest entire set of a release is ~$580 for factory fresh. However the biggest difference is that the Magic Grand Prix events have a minimum top prize of $35,000 out of a minimum overall purse of $100,000 for each event, which also awards cash to the rest of the Top 8. GW players wish they were winning that kind of prize to support their constant rotation of lists.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
Also, an irrelevant aside, it seems like you're not aware of the price of competitive Magic decks. They can pretty quickly run similar costs to a 40k army, which I find actually more insane because my 40k army at least looks great as a display.

The average cost for outright buying a full playset of the latest entire set of a release is ~$580 for factory fresh. However the biggest difference is that the Magic Grand Prix events have a minimum top prize of $35,000 out of a minimum overall purse of $100,000 for each event. GW players wish they were winning that kind of prize to support their constant rotation of lists.

Now add in the cost of getting all 8+ sets you need and the fact that your cards rapidly depreciate in value after the set they are from rotates out. In addition, there are a lot more players in a professional MtG tournament than at even LVO so your odds of getting any of that $100,000 purse are slim to none.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:
Also, an irrelevant aside, it seems like you're not aware of the price of competitive Magic decks. They can pretty quickly run similar costs to a 40k army, which I find actually more insane because my 40k army at least looks great as a display.

The average cost for outright buying a full playset of the latest entire set of a release is ~$580 for factory fresh. However the biggest difference is that the Magic Grand Prix events have a minimum top prize of $35,000 out of a minimum overall purse of $100,000 for each event. GW players wish they were winning that kind of prize to support their constant rotation of lists.

Now add in the cost of getting all 8+ sets you need and the fact that your cards rapidly depreciate in value after the set they are from rotates out. In addition, there are a lot more players in a professional MtG tournament than at even LVO so your odds of getting any of that $100,000 purse are slim to none.

Yes, but just like LVO, the Top 8 tends to be populated with the same names each year. We're not talking about the average player here. Just like the 40K talk, we're talking about the top tier.

Also, it's more like 4 sets a year (Core + a 3 set block on average), not 8. Things like the Draft sets and Un-sets aren't legal for competitive play.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Yes, but just like LVO, the Top 8 tends to be populated with the same names each year. We're not talking about the average player here. Just like the 40K talk, we're talking about the top tier.

Also, it's more like 4 sets a year, not 8.

No, we're talking about the costs to be competitive. To make even the top 64 you need a top-8 quality deck, then you need to have the skill and then you need to have a little luck (or cheating the MtG tournament scene loves it some cheating). Plus there's a lot more time investment involved in grinding out the required points to even qualify for a top-end MtG tournament which goes well beyond what it requires to place top-8 at the LVO.

 Ishagu wrote:
Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.

Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.

I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Also, is it not equally unfair that ...

Yes. Competition in general is frequently an uneven playing field defined by how much cash you can afford to throw at it.

I'm not suggesting otherwise, just stating that it sucks for for anyone who isn't of the 'throw money to win game' mindset and financial situation.

A.T. wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Also, is it not equally unfair that ...

Yes. Competition in general is frequently an uneven playing field defined by how much cash you can afford to throw at it.

I'm not suggesting otherwise, just stating that it sucks for for anyone who isn't of the 'throw money to win game' mindset and financial situation.

Water is wet...

How does MTG have a casual meta without it being infected by tournament players?

If you have a lore-friendly deck that makes sacrifices to follow the background and novels, and you show up to play, how likely are you to get stomped by most people who are there for the PUG night or whatever?

That's the problem with 40k. The imbalance is so bad that if you wanted to build an army because you like the way it looks / like the narrative / enjoy the setting then you just get crushed with no recourse - even in a casual setting. Because a "casual setting" still sees some amount of meta-chasing, even if it isn't top-16 tournament style.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How does MTG have a casual meta without it being infected by tournament players?

If you have a lore-friendly deck that makes sacrifices to follow the background and novels, and you show up to play, how likely are you to get stomped by most people who are there for the PUG night or whatever?

In some stores/formats, the friendly/casual/fluffy players usually stick to their small social group and often don't join the main organized play experience. For others, you hope the top decks win in round 1so rounds 2 and 3 are more balanced affairs.

Mostly the community self moderates and even then there are still issues in casual formats like Commander (EDH) where somebody brings a higher power-deck and thinks it's mid-tier and another player brings a fluffy deck low-end deck and also thinks it's mid-tier. It's something the community as a whole is trying to work on but at larger events where you don't know the players it's best to bring 3 or 4 decks so you can tune the power-level to what the rest of the table is playing.

That's the problem with 40k. The imbalance is so bad that if you wanted to build an army because you like the way it looks / like the narrative / enjoy the setting then you just get crushed with no recourse - even in a casual setting. Because a "casual setting" still sees some amount of meta-chasing, even if it isn't top-16 tournament style.

That also happens in MtG as well, it's just a much larger game so there are more players at each tier of play so people can find a play group that fits them.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...Mostly the community self moderates and even then there are still issues in casual formats like Commander (EDH) where somebody brings a higher power-deck and thinks it's mid-tier and another player brings a fluffy deck low-end deck and also thinks it's mid-tier. It's something the community as a whole is trying to work on but at larger events where you don't know the players it's best to bring 3 or 4 decks so you can tune the power-level to what the rest of the table is playing...

Addendum: It is much, much easier to carry around 3-4 MTG decks than it is to carry around 3-4 40k armies. EDH is also somewhat self-correcting because it's a free-for-all format and the person who brings the highest-power deck is probably going to get ganged up on.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...Mostly the community self moderates and even then there are still issues in casual formats like Commander (EDH) where somebody brings a higher power-deck and thinks it's mid-tier and another player brings a fluffy deck low-end deck and also thinks it's mid-tier. It's something the community as a whole is trying to work on but at larger events where you don't know the players it's best to bring 3 or 4 decks so you can tune the power-level to what the rest of the table is playing...

Addendum: It is much, much easier to carry around 3-4 MTG decks than it is to carry around 3-4 40k armies. EDH is also somewhat self-correcting because it's a free-for-all format and the person who brings the highest-power deck is probably going to get ganged up on.

And in serious MTG competition the decks can be as much as armies, if not more.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...Mostly the community self moderates and even then there are still issues in casual formats like Commander (EDH) where somebody brings a higher power-deck and thinks it's mid-tier and another player brings a fluffy deck low-end deck and also thinks it's mid-tier. It's something the community as a whole is trying to work on but at larger events where you don't know the players it's best to bring 3 or 4 decks so you can tune the power-level to what the rest of the table is playing...

Addendum: It is much, much easier to carry around 3-4 MTG decks than it is to carry around 3-4 40k armies. EDH is also somewhat self-correcting because it's a free-for-all format and the person who brings the highest-power deck is probably going to get ganged up on.

Indeed, my gaming bag often contains 10 decks, my playmat, and my dice bag in addition to having room for snacks and a controller for when our game night hits that let's just play videogames point a few hours in. I could also squeeze in a small trade binder if most of my decks weren't proxied to high heaven and I didn't sell my value cards.

As for ganging up on the best deck, that can work if they aren't too high above your table's ability to counter. A well built cEDH deck can probably wade through all three other decks without much issue unless the table is unfavorable and their opponents have drawn their low-cost interaction and are able to correctly assess the threats while also knowing which points of the combo can be interrupted and which ones you need to let progress before buring a spell.

I think the issue with being stomped in 40k is that it takes too long to play. Its sort of a weird social contract to just being tabled over 2-3 hours while you idled away impotently.

In MTG say you get completely wiped out in five minutes (and you will). Well... in a casual setting just dust yourself down, maybe pick another deck and go again.

I'm loathe to bring it up because I've not touched it since 3rd edition game out and so it might have changed dramatically - but in 2nd edition I felt Warmahordes was very unforgiving - but again, if your caster got sniped in 10 minutes because of a combo you didn't know, just try and learn from it and then play another game.

Different in say 40k, where if you deploy badly, you are probably screwed, but you will have most of an afternoon or whatever spent "being screwed".

But I'm not sure what the answer is there. As said in the balance thread - I like close games, but I also like "skill". A game which somehow contrives to keep things close over 5 turns and then it comes down to a final dice roll might be exciting as a beer and pretzels diversion - but its not really something to spend much time thinking about. And when you have to spend a fortune and hours and hours assembling and painting, I don't think that will work.

Tyel wrote:
In MTG say you get completely wiped out in five minutes (and you will). Well... in a casual setting just dust yourself down, maybe pick another deck and go again.

In multiplayer formats such as Commander (EDH) it can suck to be the first one out as a casual game can be several hours if the other three decks have answers for each other's win conditions. We try to avoid those games in my group, but casual magic isn't free from major feels bads moments.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tyel wrote:
In MTG say you get completely wiped out in five minutes (and you will). Well... in a casual setting just dust yourself down, maybe pick another deck and go again.

In multiplayer formats such as Commander (EDH) it can suck to be the first one out as a casual game can be several hours if the other three decks have answers for each other's win conditions. We try to avoid those games in my group, but casual magic isn't free from major feels bads moments.

Our casual group almost exclusively EDH. Because of the average length of EDH games, there's an unwritten, unspoken agreement that the hate doesn't start until mutually assured destruction is inevitable or a single player is in a position to kill the entire field of opponents. This is done specifically so that someone isn't in the position where they're waiting an hour for the first game to end.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.

Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.

I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.

Sounds like another good reason for you to quit, maybe?

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.

Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.

I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.

Sounds like another good reason for you to quit, maybe?

Better question is why are you so hellbent on getting rid of ITC?

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.

Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.

I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.

Sounds like another good reason for you to quit, maybe?

Better question is why are you so hellbent on getting rid of ITC?

It hurt his feelings people weren't using the rules he wrote in CA.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.

Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.

I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.

You're doing yourself a disservice by not playing the CA2019 ones. They're genuinely great and in a lot of ways are an improvement over ITC.

Plus apparently they are doing modular missions in 9th with the ability to add on more stuff to them. I think you can have vaguely ITC-ish secondary objectives in a few.

Anyone here believes they understand the competitive scene and the state of the game better than Nick Nanavati?

https://spikeybits.com/2018/02/the-road-to-becoming-itc-champ.html

Winning tournaments consistently is about bringing the most broken things. People winning consistently with broken things would not be winning that much without them. Evidence: NN didn’t, and he is a skilled player.

The game is not balanced enough to support people having faction pride, or similar self imposed limitations that one would expect carry from warhammer being a fluffy hobby. The broken stuff dominates and no amount of player skill alone can make up for it consistently (you might get wins, but you won’t win ITC or big events consistently).

The fact that a game this old systematically has such gross imbalances makes me think that balance is not their priority, at all. They purposely change rules not for balance but to shake things up. To me, this must mean that they stand to profit from shaking things up and, give them that it is rules and not models we are debating, this must mean that they know rules sell models.

Can anyone bring a reasoned argument to the contrary?

 Bosskelot wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.

Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.

I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.

You're doing yourself a disservice by not playing the CA2019 ones. They're genuinely great and in a lot of ways are an improvement over ITC.

Plus apparently they are doing modular missions in 9th with the ability to add on more stuff to them. I think you can have vaguely ITC-ish secondary objectives in a few.

I've played them.

We'll see about 9th missions.

Grey40k wrote:

The fact that a game this old systematically has such gross imbalances makes me think that balance is not their priority

It never was. People who think GW prioritise balance are living in an Age Of Sigmar world (cause they killed Fantasy hurr). GW want to push the narritive side of the game, not the competitive. Always have, always will.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Grey40k wrote:

The fact that a game this old systematically has such gross imbalances makes me think that balance is not their priority

It never was. People who think GW prioritise balance are living in an Age Of Sigmar world (cause they killed Fantasy hurr). GW want to push the narritive side of the game, not the competitive. Always have, always will.

The issue is, IMHO, that among strangers it is far easier to set up a competitive game than some narrative option. If the game is balanced, campaigns can be implemented easily and competitive works. If it isn't, the game suffers in all fronts. I am sure you have seen campaign organizers frustrated as people crush with competitive like armies...

Perhaps the issue is that lacking sufficient social aptitude is what prevents people from enjoying the hobby fully?

Even when I go for a pickup game I'll have a lengthy discussion with my opponent on exactly what kind of game he's after, what he's playing, what I'm playing, etc, etc

My games don't tend to finish before turn 4 and are generally fun and social.

 Ishagu wrote:
Perhaps the issue is that lacking sufficient social aptitude is what prevents people from enjoying the hobby fully?

But that's an issue for the game, not the player. Plenty of other games don't require any form of special social interaction prior to the game in order to figure out what sort of game we're playing or whether we need to consider how balanced our relative forces are. Most games provide a standardised way to play that is the default (often this isn't a de facto standard but one actually written into the core rules) and many are sufficiently balanced that I don't need to worry about how powerful or weak my force is. That means the social interaction during the game is actually social interaction and not some forced negotiation between players.

It's got nothing to do with lacking social aptitude, as you so insultingly put it. It's entirely down to it being a wholly unnecessary step in the process.

This is advertised as a social hobby where the main objective is to have fun.

If you can't facilitate the fun of your opponent, and in turn your opponent can't facilitate yours then you are both doing it wrong.

This is not a sport. This is lot a job. No one is obligated to play anyone else.
A tournament is different. There the main objective is to win and those participating are aware of that, but again, if your opponent is doing something that annoys you outside of the game you are not obligated to play them.

Slipspace wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Perhaps the issue is that lacking sufficient social aptitude is what prevents people from enjoying the hobby fully?

But that's an issue for the game, not the player. Plenty of other games don't require any form of special social interaction prior to the game in order to figure out what sort of game we're playing or whether we need to consider how balanced our relative forces are. Most games provide a standardised way to play that is the default (often this isn't a de facto standard but one actually written into the core rules) and many are sufficiently balanced that I don't need to worry about how powerful or weak my force is. That means the social interaction during the game is actually social interaction and not some forced negotiation between players.

It's got nothing to do with lacking social aptitude, as you so insultingly put it. It's entirely down to it being a wholly unnecessary step in the process.

Yep, but don't feed the troll. I discovered thanks to this guy that there is a great "ignore" option, with much better functionality than in other forums.

Obviously there is a reason why most sports / games try to have balanced rules.

Lol I do find it funny when people argue that socialising isn't necessarily in a social game that involves two people interacting face to face for hours.