Switch Theme:

Why does nobody talk about casual play?  [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
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List





America

One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?

Casual play is impossible to comment on.

You can't know the skill level of the players involved and there's nothing to peg the power of a 'fluffy' list against unless you reference what a 'competetive' tournament list looks like. This comparison tends to twist the topic in a certain way and over time it becomes the only topic.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




There's no objective criteria to measure casual play so it's a lot more difficult to talk about. It seems like you're referring to list building with your comment but I'm not sure how you would approach a discussion about that in an open forum. Among your local gaming group it's probably fine to do because you all know each other and have some common ground and common attitudes to work with. In a public forum there just isn't enough common ground to have a constructive discussion about lists.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Because the current community seems to find competitive play the most interesting thing about any game, at least from the amount of people who try to prove to me that it's not possible I'm not enjoying 8th/9th because of (something about tournament statistics).

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





Because alot of people can only have fun if they have a chance to win, and your ability to win isn't determined by your skill on the table. It's determined by how many special rules interactions, strategems and statistical output you can gather into an army. So what does this mean for casual play? It means that there will be a never ending arms race of tailoring lists to be more powerful than before JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING. You cannot approach the game with a casual attitude, because that means that you CANNOT WIN.

I cannot just polp some models down with the boys and have a good game, because my ability to have a fun game WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF WINNING, has no bearing on my ability to play, and everything to do with what models I and my opponent choose to play. My enjoyment of the game is therefore determined by how my opponent chooses to approach the game, and what army they bring. THIS LEADS TO ANIMOSITY AMONGST THE PLAYER BASE! This is why there is so much hate and vitriol spewn about.

Human nature is going to devolve into people trying to do what benefits them, and in this case it's bringing the best army possible within the bounds of the social construct. The way the social construct has played out based on the rules provided by games workshop IS THAT ARMS RACE.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/05/02 02:04:44


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?

15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 02:20:10


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Sledgehammer wrote:
Because alot of people can only have fun if they have a chance to win, and your ability to win isn't determined by your skill on the table. It's determined by how many special rules interactions, strategems and statistical output you can gather into an army. So what does this mean for casual play? It means that there will be a never ending arms race of tailoring lists to be more powerful than before JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING. You cannot approach the game with a casual attitude, because that means that you CANNOT WIN.

I cannot just polp some models down with the boys and have a good game, because my ability to have a fun game WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF WINNING, has no bearing on my ability to play, and everything to do with what models I and my opponent choose to play. My enjoyment of the game is therefore determined by how my opponent chooses to approach the game, and what army they bring. THIS LEADS TO ANIMOSITY AMONGST THE PLAYER BASE! This is why there is so much hate and vitriol spewn about.

Human nature is going to devolve into people trying to do what benefits them, and in this case it's bringing the best army possible within the bounds of the social construct. The way the social construct has played out based on the rules provided by games workshop IS THAT ARMS RACE.


Ok, sure, all caps noted, but on the other hand, tomorrow I'll be playing a game where my opponent decided he wanted to bring 7 dreadnoughts, so I'll be bringing 3 Talos, a cronos, an avatar of khaine and 2 wraithlords, and we're going to have a big stompy monster mash.

I could have a nearly 100% chance of winning if, based on that information, I chose to bring a whole list full of lascannons or dark lances or something. But you know what's weird is it kind of seems like i'd have less fun than I will with the wraithlords and the crab robots and the on fire guy.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 the_scotsman wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Because alot of people can only have fun if they have a chance to win, and your ability to win isn't determined by your skill on the table. It's determined by how many special rules interactions, strategems and statistical output you can gather into an army. So what does this mean for casual play? It means that there will be a never ending arms race of tailoring lists to be more powerful than before JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING. You cannot approach the game with a casual attitude, because that means that you CANNOT WIN.

I cannot just polp some models down with the boys and have a good game, because my ability to have a fun game WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF WINNING, has no bearing on my ability to play, and everything to do with what models I and my opponent choose to play. My enjoyment of the game is therefore determined by how my opponent chooses to approach the game, and what army they bring. THIS LEADS TO ANIMOSITY AMONGST THE PLAYER BASE! This is why there is so much hate and vitriol spewn about.

Human nature is going to devolve into people trying to do what benefits them, and in this case it's bringing the best army possible within the bounds of the social construct. The way the social construct has played out based on the rules provided by games workshop IS THAT ARMS RACE.


Ok, sure, all caps noted, but on the other hand, tomorrow I'll be playing a game where my opponent decided he wanted to bring 7 dreadnoughts, so I'll be bringing 3 Talos, a cronos, an avatar of khaine and 2 wraithlords, and we're going to have a big stompy monster mash.

I could have a nearly 100% chance of winning if, based on that information, I chose to bring a whole list full of lascannons or dark lances or something. But you know what's weird is it kind of seems like i'd have less fun than I will with the wraithlords and the crab robots and the on fire guy.
Yes, this kind of play can occur, but it is the kind of play that exists in spite of the rules themselves.

That is a situation whereby you and another ESTABLISHED FRIEND are forming your own social contract and rules about the game. This is not reinforced in the rules or accommodated in any way. It's essentially a house rule. I cannot appoach a random for a pickup game and play the game that you're talking about as that would require me to dictate to them what kind of army they can and cannot bring. The formation of a game like that requires investing time, commitment, and mutual understanding as well as the formulation of your groups own social rules. That is the antithesis of a casual game.

List building arms races is the de-facto social contract of the game, because that is what the game encourages through its meta.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/05/02 02:49:18


 
   
Made in us
One Canoptek Scarab in a Swarm



Panama City, Florida

I would say for two reasons.

First, casual play varies from group to group. Between points variations and houserules there are a NI number of ways to play casually.
Second, most of the threads on this board discuss *theoretical* competitive play because GW balances the game to please the tourneybro waaaaaahcaholics that play in competitive, living on the edge of the theory of the law of averages. As has been shown in the last few editions, GW doesn't *care* about game rules, balance, or supporting the kitbashing community: they want to sell models. That said, if enough tourneybros raise hell about something being "unbalanced" they inevitably hit it with the nerf hammer so hard it rarely ever recovers. See: all of chaos EXCEPT Deathguard. Unless they are about to release a new kit. Then they give it an extra wound, ap, toughness and attack and rewrinte the thing causing such a ruckus to be more powerful, so they can nerf it back to it's original format so you say "at least they nerfed it." XD

In effect: Casual play doesn't matter.

*Rant Time*
My beloved KSons got OBLITERATED by the change to Smite, and while it doesn't make them UNPLAYABLE, it does make them difficult to field effectively. You know, taking that one thing they did well and removing it's usefulness. That coupled with a lack of updating wounds and flamers makes them terrible to play. Now, I hear you "but CSM, that'll change when they get their updated codex" and you're right, it probably will. Until then, however we suffer. It is unacceptable that they still haven't had these small changes made official for ANY chaos without "updated" rules. A simple FAQ is apparently WAY too hard for GW to manage if you don't have a toilet seat as your legions symbol.

No one seriously plays them in tournaments because they are so bad, no one complains about it at the tournament level, nothing changes.
I could tell you about our houserule to include these simple changes that are definitely coming to our local garage gaming group, but it wouldn't matter because it's a houserule.

5000
10000+ 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Because how dare you have fun in this hobby, that's why.

"Casual Play" is also poorly defined. If we cant quantify what we're complaining about with data from tournaments, then what do we have to talk about?
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





drbored wrote:
Because how dare you have fun in this hobby, that's why.

"Casual Play" is also poorly defined. If we cant quantify what we're complaining about with data from tournaments, then what do we have to talk about?
The standard way of playing is by extension the best way to play casually as it establishes the base rules in the most common and understandable manner. This is typically matched play, which as we have established, creates a situation where you will have to then communicate with your opponent the power level of the army you are looking to play against in order to have a good game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 03:01:17


 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have pre-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have per-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.
I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/02 03:08:18


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.

15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.
Anyone should be able to walk into any store, with any list of models and have a good game without having to establish extra criteria. If you or I have to place limitations on our armies, that creates a source of conflict that must be acknowledged and considered. As it stands the barrier to entry in order to create different lists and entire armies is astronomical. That is inherently not casual.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 03:25:22


 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have per-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.
I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.


So building a detailed representation of a force from the Black Library is being casual? Seems fairly intense. We are in control of how we enjoy the game. Wanting to build a specific list from the lore and also wanting to win against someone who has built his list with table-top effectiveness might be a bridge too far. It would seem that having a shared understanding with your opponent of what you want from the game is useful. That is not the same as houseruling.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.
Anyone should be able to walk into any store, with any list of models and have a good game without having to establish extra criteria. If you or I have to place limitations on our armies, that creates a source of conflict that must be acknowledged and considered. As it stands the barrier to entry in order to create different lists and entire armies is astronomical. That is inherently not casual.



When has this been the case in all of 40k? Everyone knows 40k has balancing issues thats why causal games are separated from comp games.

15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have per-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.
I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.


So building a detailed representation of a force from the Black Library is being casual? Seems fairly intense. We are in control of how we enjoy the game. Wanting to build a specific list from the lore and also wanting to win against someone who has built his list with table-top effectiveness might be a bridge too far. It would seem that having a shared understanding with your opponent of what you want from the game is useful. That is not the same as houseruling.
How about "your own regiment" or "your own space marine chapter", or "the Ultra Marines". The exact representation of the army is irrelevant. The problem is that whatever that said hypothetical player likes, it is GUARANTEED to not be on the same power level as another player's. Some luck into their power, while others build around it. Either way you look at it, one player is being denied the good game he or she deserves due to a ruleset that is SYSTEMATICALLY DESIGNED to get players to build around power and an every rapidly changing meta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.
Anyone should be able to walk into any store, with any list of models and have a good game without having to establish extra criteria. If you or I have to place limitations on our armies, that creates a source of conflict that must be acknowledged and considered. As it stands the barrier to entry in order to create different lists and entire armies is astronomical. That is inherently not casual.



When has this been the case in all of 40k? Everyone knows 40k has balancing issues thats why causal games are separated from comp games.
I never said 40k has even been balanced. I'm arguing for an entirely different design paradigm that is antithetical to the meta, stratagem, list building arms-race that is CLEARLY at the very center of 40K's game design.

The difference in competitive play and casual play is what army you bring..... many players don't have the luxury of changing armies all the time, or having multiples of them, even if they did, that's not casual in the first place.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/02 03:36:38


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively, but that doesn't really make for a good discussion unless you're trying to perhaps create a specific themed game and are asking for thematic choices from the community to better enjoy the experience.
The thing is, competitive 40K, and adapting the game to work better in that environment will have zero impact on casual game, so there is not much to discuss for the latter. However, improving balance and competitive play has plenty of discussion between members of the community.

I would say I play far more casual games than competitive, but I still participate mostly in the competitive discussions here.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have per-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.
I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.


So building a detailed representation of a force from the Black Library is being casual? Seems fairly intense. We are in control of how we enjoy the game. Wanting to build a specific list from the lore and also wanting to win against someone who has built his list with table-top effectiveness might be a bridge too far. It would seem that having a shared understanding with your opponent of what you want from the game is useful. That is not the same as houseruling.
How about "your own regiment" or "your own space marine chapter", or "the Ultra Marines". The exact representation of the army is irrelevant. The problem is that whatever that said hypothetical player likes, it is GUARANTEED to not be on the same power level as another player's. Some luck into their power, while others build around it. Either way you look at it, one player is being denied the good game he or she deserves due to a ruleset that is SYSTEMATICALLY DESIGNED to get players to build around power and an every rapidly changing meta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.
Anyone should be able to walk into any store, with any list of models and have a good game without having to establish extra criteria. If you or I have to place limitations on our armies, that creates a source of conflict that must be acknowledged and considered. As it stands the barrier to entry in order to create different lists and entire armies is astronomical. That is inherently not casual.



When has this been the case in all of 40k? Everyone knows 40k has balancing issues thats why causal games are separated from comp games.
I never said 40k has even been balanced. I'm arguing for an entirely different design paradigm that is antithetical to the meta, stratagem, list building arms-race that is CLEARLY at the very center of 40K's game design.

The difference in competitive play and casual play is what army you bring..... many players don't have the luxury of changing armies all the time, or having multiples of them, even if they did, that's not casual in the first place.


If 1 person is stuck at a certain level they can literally ask to play at that level, odds are one of you can adjust. If no one can adjust dont be so wysiwyg heavy and just proxy, its a game for fun, have fun and try new units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 03:56:44


15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.
Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 03:59:23


 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.
Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.


You can certainly lose the game in the list-building phase. Harder, though, to win it through list-building alone.

Perhaps the enjoyment of putting time and effort into developing a back story for your army and painting it accordingly is enjoyment in and of itself? Declare victory on your own terms!

I am fortunate to have a basement gaming table where I play with friends and family and also belong to a local gaming community so I have some options. When we are not in lockdown we have tournaments that emphasize different things to keep things fresh. The December tournament is meant to feature thematic lists and be friendly to new players. Power-builds are screened out by the TO and last place gets first choice of the Secret Santa prize table. Our February tournament, on the other hand, is a fangs-out gun fight where you bring your hardest list to crush all before you. Or just bring what you want and have fun. But the expectations are known.

Anyhoo.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.
Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.


You can certainly lose the game in the list-building phase. Harder, though, to win it through list-building alone.

Perhaps the enjoyment of putting time and effort into developing a back story for your army and painting it accordingly is enjoyment in and of itself? Declare victory on your own terms!

The ultimate customer to defend GW is the one unironically saying to Forge The Narrative

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 04:48:51


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

I think that there are people who think that they are great players and then get really upset when they do not win on the tabletop. They find reasons outside of themselves for their loss. Trash rules, trash units, the other guy was a WAAC etc. Probably part of human nature. Protects our egos?

Anyway - enjoy 40K. Or do not! You have some choice in the matter.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

I think that there are people who think that they are great players and then get really upset when they do not win on the tabletop. They find reasons outside of themselves for their loss. Trash rules, trash units, the other guy was a WAAC etc. Probably part of human nature. Protects our egos?

Anyway - enjoy 40K. Or do not! You have some choice in the matter.
In what world would I find narrative satisfaction in my army being ruthlessly murdered? Nobody sets out to make an inpotent gaggle of morons who show up to get killed every week for any reason other than as a joke.

Look at the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game and you'll see a game that allows for actual casual gaming. It frustrates me because I know GW is capable of acheving it.

Also the "git good" argument on a topic about casual gaming and how certain armies are trash, says a lot about how the game and the community caters to casual play.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/05/02 06:17:36


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

crazysaneman wrote:
I would say for two reasons.

First, casual play varies from group to group. Between points variations and houserules there are a NI number of ways to play casually.
Second, most of the threads on this board discuss *theoretical* competitive play because GW balances the game to please the tourneybro waaaaaahcaholics that play in competitive, living on the edge of the theory of the law of averages. As has been shown in the last few editions, GW doesn't *care* about game rules, balance, or supporting the kitbashing community: they want to sell models. That said, if enough tourneybros raise hell about something being "unbalanced" they inevitably hit it with the nerf hammer so hard it rarely ever recovers. See: all of chaos EXCEPT Deathguard. Unless they are about to release a new kit. Then they give it an extra wound, ap, toughness and attack and rewrinte the thing causing such a ruckus to be more powerful, so they can nerf it back to it's original format so you say "at least they nerfed it." XD

In effect: Casual play doesn't matter.


It most certainly does.
There are legions of people playing casually (and most importantly, buying). Far more than you'll ever account for in your precious tourney data.
If there were a mass exodus of we, the filthy casuals, you so blithely dismiss? Well, just ask any WHFB fan how that ends.

   
Made in gb
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




UK

I play mainly casual games, and narrative stuff.

Our group hasn’t used points values once since the advent of power levels and we’ve all been much happier for it.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.
Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.


The whims of fate did not dictate that you accept games against those FOTM net lists. That's on YOU.
The whims of fate do not require you to completely sacrifice effectiveness for theme. It's been a long time since I last read a Tanith book, but they're STILL an IG regiment. They get sent to various fronts & operate alongside other Imperial forces of all types. There's no reason your list can't represent that.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: