"Tournament" and "casual" players, an odd divide

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.

**Azreal13**

MWHistorian wrote:

The game should be playable for casual and competitive.

Against each other, simultaneously, with no prior planning.

**MWHistorian**

azreal13 wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:

The game should be playable for casual and competitive.

Against each other, simultaneously, with no prior planning.

Yes.

**hotsauceman1**

Deadnight wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

My frien told me that he stop counting at the amount of Stormwalls w/ Ehaley when it reached double digits when looking at the lists for "Lock N' Load" I think. I wont pretend 40k has the same balance, but for SURE people will always finds out what works and take it alot

The e-Haley/stormwall is an easy list, but it's not the best list. It's a result of the groupthink on forums - it's good, but it doesn't dominate.

I've one-rounded colossals in the past with a single warpwolf stalker.

Yes, but like I was saying, you still get those lists in the game that everyone takes, even in a balanced game like WM/H.

**Peregrine**

Swastakowey wrote:
I also disagree that balance automatically = good.

Then you don't understand game design. This is design 101 stuff, balance is good for every type of player.

You are blaming GW for putting the option there.

No, we're blaming GW for publishing half-finished garbage.

I get that you all want a game thats focused on tournament play that eliminates any pre game talk, but thats not what GW rules are about.

No, you have this completely wrong. Eliminating pre-game negotiations has nothing to do with tournament play. Tournaments provide all of that for you in the rules for that particular tournament. Pre-game negotiation is an issue for casual players, since they're the people who are most likely to just show up and want to play a game and the least likely to care about forums/strategy/etc to have an informed opinion in those pre-game negotiations.

So the divide between casual and WAAC stems from one group playing the game as they wish it to be, while the others play the game as is. 40K doesn't cater to you clearly as much as you want it to. I dont see vegetarians complaining at food joints for having the option of meat. Its there for those that want it.

Except GW's rules aren't good for casual play either. The correct analogy would be a restaurant that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it, while a few obsessed masochists praise the unique flavor and crunchy texture.

**TheKbob**

We all have different forms of fun and they are all equally valid. In a perfect world, the game would made in a way to make sure that all parties are enjoying themselves, no matter the outlook.

What someone said on page one is correct; different levels of dedication to the hobby vary, as well. My Dad was one of the top historical scale R/C aircraft builders in the US and still frequently judges competitions, but flying for him was not always his favorite. But to compete, scale models have to be flown.

I can see the same in 40k. Some people will go to competitions to win the best army in terms of wearing someones crap on their shoes by going in mouth first where as others want to win the best made/painted army. The latter still has to be "flown" to compete.

And to those who don't care either way, they'll plunk along on their own things.

I think folks need to remember that wargaming and modeling are the hobbies. GW is just an option.

**XenosTerminus**

Peregrine wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
But the question remains, Why the divide?

Because people want different things out of their game. Some people want to just play occasionally without putting much effort into the game beyond the time they spend actually playing it, and have no interest in forums, spending tons of time writing lists, etc. Some people love building and painting the models, and just play because hey, why not, they've already got the models. Some people love the fluff and want to create an army that perfectly represents a "real" army from the background fiction. Some people love strategy and competition and spend lots of time and effort trying to be the best at their game.

The only thing different between GW games and other games is that GW's rules are so utterly broken that attempting to have a game between two players from different groups is usually not a fun experience for at least one player. This leads to the various groups seeing each other as enemies that are ruining the game, rather than fellow players who have slightly different preferences.

You almost had me with this.

I read through your entire first paragraph, agreeing with every point. I was about ready to throw my hands up and say 'holy gak a post by Peregrine that was 100% productive and on point", and then promptly purchase a lottery ticket. Unfortunately my cause for celebration quickly diminished as I continued and read your second paragraph, in which you decided to completely ruin any semblance or shred of joy I possibly took away from the previous excerpt. "Oh, he bashed GW and complained about the rules again".

Damn you Peregrine, Damn you!

**Savageconvoy**

I don't really see that as unwarranted GW bashing.
Look at it like this
Core rules
Supplements
Data slates
Formations
Escalation
Stronghold assault

So take the core rules as something that both agree on. Now you have 5 separate points that both players have to agree on. If I just bought a Khorne mower and want to play escalation but my opponent doesn't, then I have a "nice" model sitting out for no real good reason. If my opponent wants to play Stronghold assault because of his spiffy new shield generator and I don't, then he's out of luck.

Heck, even with the core rules you have to agree on allies now because of some of the insane choices. It's not like it's hard to pay 202 points of your army to make two units twin-linked and getting two scoring jetbike units.

**Grimtuff**

azreal13 wrote:
I also disagree that balance automatically = good.

I'll be honest, I tried, but that line pretty much undermines everything else you say, and I couldn't really take much else seriously after that.

But this one thing jumps out...

You say it is the players fault that GW have a poor ruleset, ostensibly, I think, because people continue to buy and play the game,

But, almost in the same breath,

You say that pricing is GW's fault? But surely that's our fault too, because "we" are paying them?

Frankly, I don't think you really know what you're arguing any more, or even if you really already did, I think you're speaking from a very narrow perspective in terms of your experience with the game, and are unwilling/unable to accommodate what people with a wider/different perspective than yours may be able to add, and also have approached the whole subject without accepting even a glimmer of a hint of a possibility that you might be wrong!

Az, I think we're dealing with one of these:

Spoiler:

**jonolikespie**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

My frien told me that he stop counting at the amount of Stormwalls w/ Ehaley when it reached double digits when looking at the lists for "Lock N' Load" I think. I wont pretend 40k has the same balance, but for SURE people will always finds out what works and take it alot

The e-Haley/stormwall is an easy list, but it's not the best list. It's a result of the groupthink on forums - it's good, but it doesn't dominate.

I've one-rounded colossals in the past with a single warpwolf stalker.

Yes, but like I was saying, you still get those lists in the game that everyone takes, even in a balanced game like WM/H.

You keep saying that but I wonder what experience you actually have?
Obviously you know something about warmachine but it sounds like your only experience with X wing is hearing some people talk online.
And for the record both games have 'better' lists but those lists are not considered WAAC because they simply don't have the same sort of advantage Taudar have over Orks.

And then there is Infinity.
You say those lists appear in all games, and yet if you go to the infinity forums, or the sub forum here, or hell even just groups on facebook, and ask for advice on lists all they really do is tell you to take what models you like. If you ask about a 'top teir' army or a 'best' list you might actually get laughed at.