Switch Theme:

What is a Casual Game?  [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 dk
Wicked Canoptek Wraith






I'd argue no using a list that has made it to top 5 in a 30+ player tournament and allowing your opponent to go back if they forgot to do something, maybe even reminding them if they forgot something.

I played a game the other day and my opponent got a little cross with me when I used the Veil of Darkness to teleport my 10 Lychguard and my Warlord over to the other side of the field, I then rolled a 12 for my charge and instead of piling everyone in as close as possible to the unit I charged, I spread out and moved them in such a way that I was able to lock two Leman Russ battle tanks in combat and take an Infantry Squad captive, preventing them from retreating. My opponent wanted to concede then and there because he had nothing he could do to my Lychguard (60 Guardsmen and 10 tanks, no melee) and because he felt I was too good at the game. I told him to continue the game a little longer, he eventually surrendered turn 3 when it looked like he couldn't keep up with missions (we rolled a mission that benefitted my army), I think this was a fair time to surrender because at that point he actually couldn't win, while the game hadn't yet been decided at the end of my first turn.

Can you play the game at a high level casually? Do you play for the mission or just for fun in a casual game. I've gotten really into the competitive mindset, I put my HQ in front of my line in a crater knowing he'd draw fire, he died but he also absorbed fire that could have killed my Warriors, I did it because I knew that holding an objective with my Warriors was more important than whatever that support HQ could do, was I playing with too competitive a mindset? I allowed my opponent to do his Astra Militarum orders after he started shooting (despite it needing to be done at the start of the shooting phase), but I think I'd do that in a competitive game as well, maybe not if my opponent was strict. If my opponent had been a better player he could have completely screened me out and protected his tanks, but he thought his tank was safe because his Guard Squad were in front of them, not assuming that I'd be able to go around and behind them. He said it was a learning experience, but I understand that a lot of people play once a month and maybe don't need a "learning experience", they just want to have fun. Are manouvres like taking captives, and moving models in ways other than straight toward your opponent something that should be saved for only competitive games?
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Wicked Warp Spider





London, UK

You definitely can but I think if you're going to play competitively in a casual setting, you also need to find the right opponent who wants the same thing.

A lot of people playing casually don't want to be tabled but turn 2 or 3.

The general rule is to always ask before you play.

5000 Fir Farillecassion Eldar 4th Ed Codex - 14/7/1 6th Ed Codex - 9/1/0 7th Ed Codex - 4/1/1 8th Ed Codex - 4/1/0
2000 Hive Fleet Zenith
Excavating eBay: My blog of eBay finds and the pile of shame!
Instagram, follow if you dare!
 
   
Made in gb
Mutilatin' Mad Dok





Dorset, England

For me a casual game is more about not bringing an optimally built list or quibbling the rules all the time rather than making deliberately stupid decisions in the game.

Although around here that's known as playing like a normal person!
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




There is no objective, universally accepted definition of a "casual game". It's a purely subjective way of playing the game that will vary from person to person, which is what makes it so difficult to discuss online or even in person. In my experience it's possible to develop a casual gaming environment but only among like-minded people who know what that means in that specific circumstance. All it takes is one person who doesn't understand what that casual game should be - again, according to you local definition which may be different to other definitions - to throw the whole thing off balance. As a very general piece of guidance I'd say not taking top-level tournament armies is about the most general and well-accepted definition of casual you can get, but for some people the definition goes further than that.

Your specific example shows the problems quite nicely. You took a non-tournament army, probably not the absolute best you could play with your faction (let's not get too deep into how bad Necrons are here though!), but then played that army to the best of your ability. Making mistakes is part of getting better at the game and saying a player doesn't want to have a learning experience but just wants to have fun seems to me to be raising one player's requirements for fun above another's. From the sounds of it you prefer to play as competitively as possible and always try to win using the best tactics available to you while your opponent doesn't want to be caught out by unexpected tricks and tactics. There's no reason why your opponent's version of fun should be favoured over yours. If a game disallows you from using your higher skill level to win then I would argue there's not much point in playing that game as that's kind of the point in most cases.

Yes, there are times when that's not the point of the game, but I would argue the default state of any competitive game should be for both players to try to win using all the skills and knowledge they can, such that the player who plays best ends up winning. Note that "competitive" here is being defined in the most straight-forward, literal sense of a head-to-head contest that determines a winner, not with any more nuanced subjective meanings that are sometimes applied. If you're playing a brand new opponent who's just learning the game you'd probably not be quite so cut-throat or if you'd agreed to play a narrative game there might be considerations other than going all-out for victory but as a default state I don't think you did anything wrong.

I'd also argue the player attitude can play a big part in things here too. If you're jumping up and down with delight, shouting in the player's face about how much he sucks and generally gloating over your victory that's not what I'd call casual. If you approach it as a learning experience for the player, maybe taking the time to show him how to avoid the same thing happening in the future and discussing the general approach to his tactics and set-up that could probably help too.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/11 09:37:43


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

Casual is basically a meaningless term.

It means different things to different people and broadly is nearly impossible to talk about outside of your own group because each group can have its own definitions and understanding.

The other messy aspect is that somepeople are just bad at the game. They build bad lists, they play poorly, have a weak grasp of the rules and concepts. They might even only half pay attention to the table and even if they are paying attention they don't know enough to really know how or what to pay attention to.

If they come up against a higher skilled player then even if both agree to a "casual game" the skilled player is still going to take a better list and use it better.


Now at the local level if you've a large enough and broad enough population the player skill groups will naturally gravitate toward each other. You'll get outliers such as the older gamer who games with older gamers because its less of a generation gap even if they are very new and unskilled; or the experienced player who picks on the novices for the easy wins. etc....
However in general you can settle out to where most are playing similar skill blocks. If you get unbalance in the skill levels or the group is small and thus hasn't got as many in each bracket then you've got to go a step further with a few approaches.

1) Teaching. Yep shift from competitive games into teaching and advance the skill of the unskilled. Often as not many in the hobby learn through trial and error and such; but self learning is a skill and many migth only get one or two games a week at best. So that's going to take a very very long time to learn. So help them out - show them how to run their army better; how to play the game; how to read the game state; how to make tactical choices; how to choose what to shoot or assault with what etc... Ergo invest into your group and help the others along and they will reward you with better skilled opponents to play against. Everyone wins.

2) Handicaps. These might vary a lot from simply taking less points than the unskilled player; through to playing more narrative/open play style games. Eg you might play only 200 points each but have 8 different players and armies on the board etc... Ergo you muck around with the games concept to remove the pure competitive edge from it and instead make it more a social event.

3) Throw games. This is harder than it might appear and not always the best option. Throwing games means making bad choices and it means being deliberate in losing. You'll get away with it for a while, but eventually people do notice that you're doing it. They win every other game against you but then you both to into a local tourney and you win and they wind up last. etc... Also any learning they might do from you "because you're better" gets confusing because you make open bad choices which might still cause you to win but were bad choices all the same, so they pick up the bad habits.

Personally I'm reminded of Deepspace 9 when Miles O'Brian and the Dr. are playing darts. The Dr. reveals that for years he's been throwing his game and is instead a far more skilled player than O'Brian. The result is that upon this revelation the Dr. is made to play further away.
Ergo an open handicap to bridge skill variation is better than deceptive game throwing.
One is an honest display whilst the other is a dishonest one. The results might even out to bet the same in terms of wins for each person, but one of them shows respect to the other player whilst the other does not.



Also note that there's no such thing as a "tournament list" just as there's no such thing as a "net list". They are simply good lists built with the concept of using good units in the right places for the right purpose within the army. Tournament and net lists are terms people ascribe to them to try and make certain combos appear more powerful or more special; but I prefer to just think of it as good lists.
This is because many people can make a "tournament or net" list without ever having read of either. So if you say to them "no net list" they can still throw a "net list" at you because its just a good list.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






For me (and I stress that it's purely my interpretation, nothing more), there's not really any such thing as a casual game, only casual gamers. Like with computer games, these are the players who don't get too deep into the game. They're not constantly tracking FAQs, new rules publications, etc. They don't follow tournament results to see what the best lists are. They just buy some models they like, and play some games using them.

It's orthogonal to skill, really. You can take the game deadly seriously and still be awful at it.
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut




To me, casual mostly refers to listbuilding. A casual list is a list where units were mostly picked because of something other than their rules.
Since there is a lot of imbalance between units in 40K, and that combos are very important, picking the "wrong" units leads to weak lists.
Someone who plays competitively, brings a very good list and expect to have a tight game will therefore have a bad time playing against someone who brought a casual list. Sadly, two casual lists can also vary greatly in power.

I don't think it has any meaning for in-game stuff though, as being a good sport and trying to have a good time with the other is just common decency.
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

I'd suggest that 'casual' can mean a few different things to people. Some interpret 'casual' to mean 'pickup' - in that they're non-arranged non-tournament games. But I think the vast majority of people would interpret 'casual' to just mean 'not the sort of game you'd play at a tournament'.

For me, casual games imply that the idea is to play the game and have fun telling a narrative story. Any 'shenanigans' (really gamey placement of models, rules-lawyering, ridiculous combinations of buffs, only using multiples of the best units in the codex) that would be acceptable or expected at tournaments are not welcome in a casual game.

In a casual game, I might charge my lead character into the opponent's lead character, or my Berserkers across open ground in a big line, or whatever, because it's cool and characterful and tells a good story. I'd expect the opponent to be doing the same. I'll try to get my army to win, but I don't really care if I lose, as long as the game was fun and cool things happened. I frequently and happily remind my opponent of things he forgot, or let him jump back and do things he forgot (as long as it doesn't slow us all down). If it looks like I'm unintentionally going to stomp him, I'll tone it down a bit mid-game. If it looks really unfair right from the start, I'll drop some models or cool abilities or something. I might vary how 'tactically' I play mid-game based on if it looks like the game is swinging too heavily one way or the other. The intention is to have seven turns of close, cool, action rather than to win as totally as possible.

In your scenario, it's hard to tell if he was annoyed at you for being 'better than him' (i.e. he wants to make the choices you made but doesn't have the ability) or for choosing to use tactics and combinations that he considers 'too much' for a casual game (i.e he's quite capable of playing like that, but wasn't doing so because you'd agreed on a casual game).

Generally, I'd suggest that when you agree to play a casual game, you should expect to be facing non-optimal lists, underused-but-cool units and a lack of devastating tactical combos that win the game outright. The exact 'level' of this varies from group to group, but the idea is that both your armies are like that, so you have seven turns of play where the game could go either way.

Overread wrote:Teaching. Yep shift from competitive games into teaching and advance the skill of the unskilled. Often as not many in the hobby learn through trial and error and such; but self learning is a skill and many migth only get one or two games a week at best.


It's important to remember, that, for a lot of people, playing casual games is a choice, not a deficiency. I can happily build a stupidly powerful list (I have zillion models by this point) and I've been playing the game for years and years. I don't often want to play that sort of game, though. I want to play with cool models I like, even if the rules for them aren't very good at the moment. It's why I'm a bit suspicious of the 'teach them to play better' thing. At this point, I only get one or two games a month. So do most players I know. They don't want to spend those games thinking through every advantage and remembering combinations, they want to play a simple fun narrative game while having a beer (which is handily, the sort of game 40k is best for). So, while it's definitely good to help teach people who don't really 'get' the game, it would be wrong to assume that casual players are just less-skilled competitive players.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
For me (and I stress that it's purely my interpretation, nothing more), there's not really any such thing as a casual game, only casual gamers. Like with computer games, these are the players who don't get too deep into the game. They're not constantly tracking FAQs, new rules publications, etc. They don't follow tournament results to see what the best lists are. They just buy some models they like, and play some games using them.

It's orthogonal to skill, really. You can take the game deadly seriously and still be awful at it.


Absolutely agree with this!

 Overread wrote:
Also note that there's no such thing as a "tournament list" just as there's no such thing as a "net list".


As far as I'm aware, 'net lists' are lists which, because of their effectiveness, are all over the internet. So it implies that someone has either done loads of research or copied a tournament winning list off the net. That's definitely a thing.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/06/11 11:52:29


   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

 ArbitorIan wrote:


Overread wrote:Teaching. Yep shift from competitive games into teaching and advance the skill of the unskilled. Often as not many in the hobby learn through trial and error and such; but self learning is a skill and many migth only get one or two games a week at best.


It's important to remember, that, for a lot of people, playing casual games is a choice, not a deficiency. I can happily build a stupidly powerful list (I have zillion models by this point) and I've been playing the game for years and years. I don't often want to play that sort of game, though. I want to play with cool models I like, even if the rules for them aren't very good at the moment. It's why I'm a bit suspicious of the 'teach them to play better' thing. At this point, I only get one or two games a month. So do most players I know. They don't want to spend those games thinking through every advantage and remembering combinations, they want to play a simple fun narrative game while having a beer (which is handily, the sort of game 40k is best for). So, while it's definitely good to help teach people who don't really 'get' the game, it would be wrong to assume that casual players are just less-skilled competitive players.


True, but it often goes hand in hand. Furthermore two skilled players choosing to play casual can typically work out between themselves how to balance it out and what does and doesn't count. Where you've players with less skill such a resolution is often hard to impossible because one person isn't going to be clear on their language nor examples. The unskilled is going to call even quite mundane and basic tactical moves as "omg that's so op!" Because it took off their favourite model (which might not be their strongest even if they "think" it is).

Ergo the skill barrier issue tends to be the one that causes the most unrest within a group and tends to be the one that people post about online. Especially since the unskilled can't adapt on the fly mid-game. Two skilled players can adapt their game on the fly and talk about it during the game. They can tone it down or up; whilst a less skilled player is likely playing closer to their upper limit and likely has less grasp to scale things down.


Of course we talk about scaling playstyle up and down as if they are actual values on a scale to be measured; when in reality is far more fickle and open to interpretation and specific situations.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in gb
Council of 13 Runner Up






Ahh, the question with near infinite answers!

In it's most basic, it's a game with little to no pre-arrangement. Just two nerds in the same place at the same time, throwing down.

One might be playing for the sake of playing. The other might be carrying a killer army designed to do well in a large tournament, where every VP/KP counts.

Regardless of how disparate the approach of both parties, that the game wasn't already arranged? That's casual gaming.

Or at least, the rawest, least caveated one I can currently articulate!

Fed up for Scalpers? Why not join us? 
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre



california

 vict0988 wrote:
I'd argue no using a list that has made it to top 5 in a 30+ player tournament and allowing your opponent to go back if they forgot to do something, maybe even reminding them if they forgot something.

I played a game the other day and my opponent got a little cross with me when I used the Veil of Darkness to teleport my 10 Lychguard and my Warlord over to the other side of the field, I then rolled a 12 for my charge and instead of piling everyone in as close as possible to the unit I charged, I spread out and moved them in such a way that I was able to lock two Leman Russ battle tanks in combat and take an Infantry Squad captive, preventing them from retreating. My opponent wanted to concede then and there because he had nothing he could do to my Lychguard (60 Guardsmen and 10 tanks, no melee) and because he felt I was too good at the game. I told him to continue the game a little longer, he eventually surrendered turn 3 when it looked like he couldn't keep up with missions (we rolled a mission that benefitted my army), I think this was a fair time to surrender because at that point he actually couldn't win, while the game hadn't yet been decided at the end of my first turn.

Can you play the game at a high level casually? Do you play for the mission or just for fun in a casual game. I've gotten really into the competitive mindset, I put my HQ in front of my line in a crater knowing he'd draw fire, he died but he also absorbed fire that could have killed my Warriors, I did it because I knew that holding an objective with my Warriors was more important than whatever that support HQ could do, was I playing with too competitive a mindset? I allowed my opponent to do his Astra Militarum orders after he started shooting (despite it needing to be done at the start of the shooting phase), but I think I'd do that in a competitive game as well, maybe not if my opponent was strict. If my opponent had been a better player he could have completely screened me out and protected his tanks, but he thought his tank was safe because his Guard Squad were in front of them, not assuming that I'd be able to go around and behind them. He said it was a learning experience, but I understand that a lot of people play once a month and maybe don't need a "learning experience", they just want to have fun. Are manouvres like taking captives, and moving models in ways other than straight toward your opponent something that should be saved for only competitive games?

I have to ask since no one has. How did you wrap 60 guardsman to where they couldn’t retreat with 10 lychguaf st the same time tying up 2 tanks??
   
Made in dk
Wicked Canoptek Wraith






Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I have to ask since no one has. How did you wrap 60 guardsmen to where they couldn’t retreat with 10 Lychguard at the same time tying up 2 tanks??

I killed one squad with shooting, another with melee, wrapped one model in a third squad preventing that squad from retreating, he was forced to retreat with two Leman Russes I had used my Consolidate to get within 1" of with the Lychguard. He had 30 Guardsmen that were totally free to do whatever they wanted to do during his second turn
   
Made in ca
Painting Within the Lines




t.dot

What is casual will be determined between you and your opponent.

I've had casual fluffy-bunny games where I bring a soft army because my opponent is new to the game and has 5 games under their belt. I don't worry about synergizing buffs or maximizing attacks, I just push models onto objectives or into their units and we fight, and I let their army do what it does.

I've had casual tournament prep games where my friends and I are preparing for a tournament, with cutthroat tournament lists. But because it's practice, we allow takebacks and offer strategic input/critique, or remind them of things they forgot or are doing wrong.

And I've even had casual in-tournament games because of mutual respect: declaring intent, no ambiguity, peaceful resolution of rules, and we may or may not be drinking.

   
Made in ca
God-like Imperator Titan Commander




Halifax

A casual game is when they leave that night and don't call in the morning.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






A casual game is dependent on your frame of mind (i.e. Are you focused solely on winning for self gratification? -or- Are you relaxed and carefree, sharing in the entertainment of the game you and your opponent both enjoy?). The later qualifies as being a 'casual game'.

The terms of the game are established with the social contract. There is and needs to be a separation of these two ideas ('casual game' and 'terms of engagement') and this is where I believe most people get things mixed. You can establish terms with debilitated armies, but still have a 'focused only on winning' mindset.

vict0988 wrote:Can you play the game at a high level casually?


Yes. I do all the time. Optimized armies, very strategic and deliberate game play, but all while having a jovial and carefree attitude.
   
Made in us
Veteran Inquisitor with Xenos Alliances






There is an element of mutual gratification inherent to all games. By whatever means as participants move further away from that and place a greater overriding emphasis on their personal gratification the game becomes less casual.
   
Made in gb
Council of 13 Runner Up






 oni wrote:
A casual game is dependent on your frame of mind (i.e. Are you focused solely on winning for self gratification? -or- Are you relaxed and carefree, sharing in the entertainment of the game you and your opponent both enjoy?). The later qualifies as being a 'casual game'.

The terms of the game are established with the social contract. There is and needs to be a separation of these two ideas ('casual game' and 'terms of engagement') and this is where I believe most people get things mixed. You can establish terms with debilitated armies, but still have a 'focused only on winning' mindset.

vict0988 wrote:Can you play the game at a high level casually?


Yes. I do all the time. Optimized armies, very strategic and deliberate game play, but all while having a jovial and carefree attitude.


A tournament with nothing more at stake than a trophy and bragging rights is ultimately still casual, if you ask me. Yes some might take it all too seriously, but that’s the same regardless of whether it’s a pick up game, a narrative campaign etc.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 vict0988 wrote:

I played a game the other day and my opponent got a little cross with me when I used the Veil of Darkness to teleport my 10 Lychguard and my Warlord over to the other side of the field, I then rolled a 12 for my charge and instead of piling everyone in as close as possible to the unit I charged, I spread out and moved them in such a way that I was able to lock two Leman Russ battle tanks in combat and take an Infantry Squad captive, preventing them from retreating. My opponent wanted to concede then and there because he had nothing he could do to my Lychguard (60 Guardsmen and 10 tanks, no melee) and because he felt I was too good at the game. I told him to continue the game a little longer, he eventually surrendered turn 3 when it looked like he couldn't keep up with missions (we rolled a mission that benefitted my army), I think this was a fair time to surrender because at that point he actually couldn't win, while the game hadn't yet been decided at the end of my first turn.


Better question is "Do you understand why what you did may have been a jerk move?" You wasted three turns playing out a game where you won by luck on the first turn, when you could have reset, and started a new game you would have both enjoyed finishing.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Courageous Space Marine Captain





SoCal

 solkan wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

I played a game the other day and my opponent got a little cross with me when I used the Veil of Darkness to teleport my 10 Lychguard and my Warlord over to the other side of the field, I then rolled a 12 for my charge and instead of piling everyone in as close as possible to the unit I charged, I spread out and moved them in such a way that I was able to lock two Leman Russ battle tanks in combat and take an Infantry Squad captive, preventing them from retreating. My opponent wanted to concede then and there because he had nothing he could do to my Lychguard (60 Guardsmen and 10 tanks, no melee) and because he felt I was too good at the game. I told him to continue the game a little longer, he eventually surrendered turn 3 when it looked like he couldn't keep up with missions (we rolled a mission that benefitted my army), I think this was a fair time to surrender because at that point he actually couldn't win, while the game hadn't yet been decided at the end of my first turn.


Better question is "Do you understand why what you did may have been a jerk move?" You wasted three turns playing out a game where you won by luck on the first turn, when you could have reset, and started a new game you would have both enjoyed finishing.


Thank you! I can't believe no one else called him on this.

If your opponent wants to end the game, and you tell him no, no, only to continue doing the thing he finds unenjoyable, you're being selfish. That might be fine in a tournament game, but in a casual game? Nope. A good time was not had by all.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




From my experience casual should mean: Reminding players about things missed, no time clocks, explaining your armies mechanics if they don't know, and even going back and changing things to keep the game going (personal preference there).

If you have large collections bringing your best list is likely not that casual unless you know your opponent can deal with it. Luckily we can all show lists and discuss with upcoming opponents easily through social media these days so simply sending the list can keep from someone being hard countered. I also think the difference between a casual and competitive battle can often be decided in deployment. I play kraken rush nids most often and for those who don't know whatsup (luckily getting to where everyone does) I've often let them know whatsup and just how screwed they are if I get first and they did not screen correctly.

Having to play the game to a lesser degree of your skill should not be the definition of a casual game, because how is that fun for you? Casual, competitive, narrative, etc. all have the same goal: fun.
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

nopeace wrote:
Having to play the game to a lesser degree of your skill should not be the definition of a casual game, because how is that fun for you? Casual, competitive, narrative, etc. all have the same goal: fun.


It’s often brought up that the issue with the competitive/casual conversation is that ‘fun’ means different things to different people.

For example, for me, how much skill is involved in the game, or how much skill I play with, has very little relation to how ‘fun’ the game is. If I want a test of skill I’ll build some conversions, or try some sculpting, or go to work or something. Though sometimes the problem solving element of a game is fun to be, generally when I’m playing, I’m mostly PLAYING.


.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/11 21:01:00


   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






This whole argument is why I like to play the game as competitive as possible. Neither player has to try to "moderate" their army lists or play worse, if both players are bringing the nastiest, hardests lists they can.

If you wanna concoct a fluff scenario and play it out with your friends, sure. But if you want to do a pickup game, the only way to actually be assured of a good match is for both players to bring tournament quality lists. Otherwise you'll quite often just end up with one side stomping the other.
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

 Horst wrote:
This whole argument is why I like to play the game as competitive as possible. Neither player has to try to "moderate" their army lists or play worse, if both players are bringing the nastiest, hardests lists they can.

If you wanna concoct a fluff scenario and play it out with your friends, sure. But if you want to do a pickup game, the only way to actually be assured of a good match is for both players to bring tournament quality lists. Otherwise you'll quite often just end up with one side stomping the other.


Yeah, you’re technically right, but the massive, massive downside of that way of playing is that it cuts out anyone who doesn’t have the right army, the right models, or the time and money to move with the meta. And it means you see less units and less different sorts of armies on the table.

It’s bad for the hobby.

Generally, there is no pickup game culture where I am. You arrange games in advance through social media (including the sort of game you want) and different clubs have different standards for acceptable play. Sometimes there’s a mismatch, but that’s the exception rather than the rule.

   
Made in dk
Wicked Canoptek Wraith






 solkan wrote:
Better question is "Do you understand why what you did may have been a jerk move?" You wasted three turns playing out a game where you won by luck on the first turn, when you could have reset, and started a new game you would have both enjoyed finishing.

I don't think asking someone to continue a game can ever be a dick move, unless they have to go to a wedding or something maybe. Asking someone to surrender earlier than they want to is a dick move. Surrendering is not in the rulebook, it is in fact cheating, but the worst part is that you are cheating yourself of what could be a good game because you are having a fit over things not currently going your way. Have you ever surrendered T2 and thought "oh what a great game that was", even if you get beat bad, you can still find enjoyment in the little things, like crapping all over my remaining Lychguard, an experience my opponent otherwise would not have had. I'll drag you to turn 3 kicking and screaming if I have to, it's bad manners to end the game turn 1 and chances are your game experience probably couldn't have been worse whether it's a 1 turn game or a 3 turn game. You can't just start a game over because you had a bad turn 1, you have to believe in the heart of your dice! In any case I think it should have been my opponent that should have asked for a rematch if he really felt like it would be a better use of our time by making a new game and re-doing deployment instead of trying to make the most of the very winnable game we had going on. Otherwise, I can ask for a rematch every time I fail my charge after using the Veil of Darkness on my Lychguard. Or when my opponent got first turn with his shooting army against my predominantly melee army. I might be wrong and the earth might be flat and my dice might get cold, but I won't let you get away with a bad experience if I can help it.
   
Made in gb
Swift Swooping Hawk






I think if someone wants to concede turn one after basically getting outmaneuvered to such a degree where they cant win (by the sound of it that was the case) that's fair enough.

If they want to admit defeat I don't think its that bad. Its a quick win. let them try again. Some people do give up too easily so there's also that. For sure he should have said: "ya know what you got me here. I wont be able to recover becasue of getting tagged so much and the mission. I am happy to concede if you want to re-play" but you can suggest that as well. I wouldn't pressure someone to keep on playing in any circumstances though.

Personally wouldn't do it because I would like the opportunity to grow and the challenge play my way out of a hole which is possible half the time, and all it takes is a bit of luck on the dice and bit of bad luck on the opponents side. Not everyone is like that though.

Regarding OP

For me a casual game = no Min/max list and take-backsies if errors are made.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/11 22:11:55


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Courageous Space Marine Captain





SoCal

How is surrendering cheating? "Having a fit"? The POINT of a game is to have fun. If it's no longer fun, people should walk away. Why do you want to turn Warhammer into Monopoly, an exercise in drawn out misery?

It sounds to me like you feel cheated that you only got to stomp him for a few turns instead of all the turns.

   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Argive wrote:

If they want to admit defeat I don't think its that bad. Its a quick win. let them try again.

Exactly this. I honestly don't have as much fun absolutely dominating anyways unless its a tournament. Then I'm as happy as can be, and if its a tournament where points matter i'm sure the judges will let you work out how many you'd make if they walk off right? If its just some people playing, you both likely have a better time resetting, maybe picking a mission thats more competitive between the armies, and then possibly discussing the table terrain and deployments to make it a better game overall.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






nopeace wrote:
 Argive wrote:

If they want to admit defeat I don't think its that bad. Its a quick win. let them try again.

Exactly this. I honestly don't have as much fun absolutely dominating anyways unless its a tournament. Then I'm as happy as can be, and if its a tournament where points matter i'm sure the judges will let you work out how many you'd make if they walk off right? If its just some people playing, you both likely have a better time resetting, maybe picking a mission thats more competitive between the armies, and then possibly discussing the table terrain and deployments to make it a better game overall.


ITC tournaments give you 4 points per round after an opponent concedes, and max secondary points (assuming they're possible for you to complete). Most people don't concede in those tournaments though, because if you do you score zero points, but if you play it out to the end you keep whatever points you had.
   
Made in dk
Wicked Canoptek Wraith






 Argive wrote:
If they want to admit defeat I don't think its that bad. Its a quick win.

Who cares whether it's a win or a loss? A one-turn game is hardly a game, especially not when you've killed only 80 pts. My opponent still had 80% of his shooting.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How is surrendering cheating? "Having a fit"? The POINT of a game is to have fun. If it's no longer fun, people should walk away. Why do you want to turn Warhammer into Monopoly, an exercise in drawn out misery?

It sounds to me like you feel cheated that you only got to stomp him for a few turns instead of all the turns.

Not playing by the rules of the game is cheating. If you just invented a new warlord trait and used it without your opponent's permission it'd be cheating. Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission.

It sounds like you a whiny grog that surrenders any game where you aren't stomping your opponent. It only makes sense to surrender all the time if your measure of having fun is how many games you win in a given month "oh this game isn't going so well, I'll be able to beat my quota if I surrender and start a new game".
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

What you can see in this thread is that the term "casual game" communicates nothing and is kinda useless for helping arrange a fun game. We have multiple definitions considered acceptable by multiple people, all feeling that their POV is the correct one.

It is more important to talk about the type of game you want. If you want narrative play, then say that! Make a narrative scenario, play with commanders with predefined characters, and have fun doing it. I would say narrative play in this way is not "casual", because you are taking the story seriously and putting some effort in with it.
If you want a goofy pick up game, specifically say "I am looking to run some goofy or less powerful units, will you do the same?" If your opponent does not want to play a game like that, they can decline, or they can take part of they have that option (remember, the "I only have this limited model selection" argument can apply to any player, even a player with a killer list).
I think one should always be relaxed and accommodating while playing, so I don't see that as something to ask for, but it might be worth it with strangers.
Discuss this stuff, in specific, with people you are going to play with.

I would also say 40K and AoS are actually terrible games for "casual" players because the list building element is the main determinant of victory for most players. So unit choice can really screw up the balance of the game. Also all factions are not equally balanced or even close to it, because of GWs incompetent designers, so you end up with people picking the faction they like because of the art or minis or story and then finding out (after investing a bunch of time and money) that they happen to be the buttmonkey for this edition (or sometimes the next several editions...) and they are playing with a permanent handicap.

I think better balanced games make for much better casual play experiences, because ultimately wargames are still competitive rather than collaborative games. If I want a collaborative game, I play a roleplaying game or Rangers of the Shadowdeep.

   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: