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.

The people you choose to associate with are a small, narrowly focused part of the hobby.

I've participated in very large conventions where we talk to people who played our games directly, not just a small narrowly focused part of the game. The only only only domain I've ever seen such a lackadaisical fan attitude toward game rules is the 40k and aos crowd, out of dozens of games and dozens of player bases.

This right here comes across as disparaging towards casual gamers.

I don't see how that quote disparages casual gamers. The casual gamers typically don't say anything, which is part of the problem. They just silently leave while the loud people (which in my bubble are the power players almost exclusively) demand no comp and bust our public campaigns because of the bad rules.

Public Events are what I do. So just not doing public events and retiring to the garage is not something that I should be forced to do in defense of GW's very poor rules writing, and is why to me the games balance and rules are my first consideration before I put time into a game.

Seems to me Auticus, that you are (maybe unconsciously?) using 'the rules' as a deflection from another problem that you are likely well aware of. Gw's rules are wooly as hell, and don't help. But I have never come across a set of ttg rules that couldn't be abused and used to metaphorically beat someone over the head with. The perfect set of rules does not exist. Everything else falls short and will have sharp edges that folks will gleefully take ten of and whack over their 'mates' head with.

That is true, and I don't disagree, but I NEVER have this same issue in ANY other game that I play or have played. It is ONLY in the GW game-verse that this is an issue, largely because the balance issues are SO horribly bad whereas in other games the balance issues exist but aren't so gross.

Playing devils advocate, Maybe the problem is (at least partly) playing in the public play domain.

But again I have no problem doing what i've been doing since the mid 90s (public events) with any other game. Just GW.

My biggest eye opener pretty much in my entire career of writing rules came during the AOS era where we had fan comp. I wrote Azyr Comp which was the first fan comp and was one of the top three being used before GW pulled our plugs and adopted SCGT comp. The BIGGEST complaint that I got out of several thousand posts and messages was "your comp is boring, anyone can just make a 2000 point list and it is just as good as anyone else's 2000 point list, I am being punished by not being able to be rewarded for good list building" - meaning there needs to be imbalance and busted elements that people can abuse or else its not fun.

So yes, it is gamer culture that pushes for breaking the game in list building. Whether or not that is seen as good or bad depends on what side of the same coin you stand.

 auticus wrote:

So yes, it is gamer culture that pushes for breaking the game in list building. Whether or not that is seen as good or bad depends on what side of the same coin you stand.

It's a small subset of gamers, rather than the overall culture. While there are certainly those players who want to be able to fine tune lists to eke every possible ounce of efficiency out of them, or who want to find that magical OP list to defeat all comers, from my experience the vast majority just make a list with the units they like, or the units they happen to own, and go from there.

Unfortunately there's no real way to quantify that measurably on a global or even regional scale.

The main crux is that tight and balanced rulesets can work for every type of gamer, whereas loose imbalanced rulesets only really wind up enjoyable to CAACs like Jervis Johnson or to the lunatic ROFLstompers that run the optimized power lists. Tight and balanced doesn't eliminate that WAACs, it just gives them a lesser ability to have an autopilot list.

 Just Tony wrote:
The main crux is that tight and balanced rulesets can work for every type of gamer, whereas loose imbalanced rulesets only really wind up enjoyable to CAACs like Jervis Johnson or to the lunatic ROFLstompers that run the optimized power lists. Tight and balanced doesn't eliminate that WAACs, it just gives them a lesser ability to have an autopilot list.

This.

THIS SO MUCH.

This would remove a lot of issues because the autopilot rofflestompers would either need to learn to actually play OR leave.

Yep, and while I'm sure there will always be options that are "better" per list, there shouldn't ever be a moment where, like a few infamous builds over the years, it becomes a default choice and visible in every list.

I'm psychotic, though. The second I saw a netlist I immediately tried to find someone who ran it solely for the challenge of quashing it.

I agree Tony.

Well said Deadnight. Have an exalt.


That being said, I agree with the sentiments Auticus and Tony express; except I also know it is impossible. Not even Chess or GO can manage perfect balance. No matter what you build, someone, somewhere will break it and put it all on the net. I find the best balancing method is Comp and Scenario. Everything else is secondary and less effective.

Complexity, rules/game balance and cost or value for dollar. If a game isn't fun, deep, balanced, and fairly priced, I won't bother.

Rough choice. for me a massive stickler is cost, but also Lore and background, and they dance between the most important. the thing is.. im not much of a person for models. im more for rules and background, and just kind of found myself in these kind of things. very few games have ever kept my attention for an extended period of time, and usually it's the background or ease of entry that got me there in the first place.

Just Tony wrote:The main crux is that tight and balanced rulesets can work for every type of gamer, whereas loose imbalanced rulesets only really wind up enjoyable to CAACs like Jervis Johnson or to the lunatic ROFLstompers that run the optimized power lists. Tight and balanced doesn't eliminate that WAACs, it just gives them a lesser ability to have an autopilot list.

I want to agree with you. In principle, you are not wrong. The problem though Is that this game does not exist. It's all well and good talking about tight and balanced rulesets, but it's a unicorn - I have never come across a ruleset that was tight and balanced enough to actually accommodate this. With respect, the best we've had, and I'd argue, the most realistic manifestations of this have ranged from various shades of 'more or less good enough'. And that its effect is often purely matter of perspective, and not something objective. Even the best games have come down to a handful of autopilot lists. Because oftentimes, gamers would rather lean on crutches than be creative. And as you say, there will always be options that are better per list.

Just Tony wrote:Yep, and while I'm sure there will always be options that are "better" per list, there shouldn't ever be a moment where, like a few infamous builds over the years, it becomes a default choice and visible in every list.
.

Agreed - shouldn't. This is not the reality though, and I feel, never will be. Talking about is this is functionally academic at best. And you contradict yourself - If there are options that are 'better' per list, then the unfortunate manifestation of this is the exact thing you claim shouldn't happen - a default choice visible in every list. It will always happen. There has never been a game, whether woolly as hell, like gw's offerings, or tighter with more technical writing, like the offerings from privateer press, cb, wotc, ffg etc that has not ultimately been meta'ed out and brought down to a more or less default choices, with only a handful of builds advertised by the community as being effective, and everything else being dismissed as crap.

I voted for lore/ background. That being said my games are usually already well established IPs. Lotr, Star Trek, AVP. 40K has become well known through PC games as well.
If I look at my STAW minis... no, miniatures are probably not the most important aspect for me Though I went and bought ships to have them all in the same scale at least. I've yet to meet a wargame where I look at the miniatures and think "that might be interesting".

The rules aren't that important for me. They should be fun and able to recreate the background, I view wargames more as RPG than as tactical simulations. That might be the reason warmachine never appealed to me (aside from their ugly miniatures).

Overall the most important question is probably is any of my friends willing to play the game as well. If not, no reason to get into it.

 Just Tony wrote:
The main crux is that tight and balanced rulesets can work for every type of gamer, whereas loose imbalanced rulesets only really wind up enjoyable to CAACs like Jervis Johnson or to the lunatic ROFLstompers that run the optimized power lists. Tight and balanced doesn't eliminate that WAACs, it just gives them a lesser ability to have an autopilot list.

There's no such thing as a CAAC - at the point at you do anything "at all costs", you can no longer be considered casual. You know what casual players do when the game starts to suck? They stop playing. Because the entire point of being casual is that you have low investment. How could you ever consider Jervis Johnson to be a casual player? That dude has forgotten more about game mechanics and game design than most players will ever dream to know.

The ones who insist and fight and push back against competitive play are not casual. They are every bit as hardcore as what you call WAACs, but their goals are cooperative, and thus supportive and casual-friendly. Low involvement players won't get too far in a hobby that requires hours of prep work and hundreds of dollars to play even a single game - but they can be carried by the hardcore cooperative players who smooth over the bumps and pave the way into the game. Arguably, these types of players are the most important to have, because everybody starts as a casual at first.

You are basically arguing that anything that is not expressly forbidden is expressly encouraged, and that's not a healthy way to look as a game system. Game systems are complicated and have a lot of interlocking piece. They are really a case where a butterfly flaps its wings in Brooklyn and there's a tornado in Hong Kong. The cooperative players sees this and thinks, that's not something I'd like to happen, so let's not do that. The competitive players see this and think, I wonder what would happen if I had two butterflies! I'll bet my opponent would do it.

The WAAC players fill all of Brooklyn with high powered fans pointed at Hong Kong. You can outlaw using butterflies and high powered fans, but they'd just go out and use paper fans or flap their arms really fast. Forbid that and they'll get some hummingbirds. You can't explicitly forbid every negative behavior, nor can you put an abstract ban on nebulous negative behavior. You also can't make a game system interesting enough to be worth playing that is so limited in scope that there is little room for exploitation in the first place (a world without butterflies or fans).

In short, people who want to rape the cracks in your game system will always be able to. Like rats, you'll never be able to full stop them - only slow them down. But the cost of doing this will ultimately ruin your game system and make it extremely unfun for everybody else. "Tight and balanced" is innately unfun, as a system. It is fun for competition, but for a system to be tight and balanced, it must lack breadth and depth. Tight means nothing extraneous and balanced means both sides are the same. It is impossible to make two unequal sides truly balanced. As has been mentioned, games like Go and Chess are still unbalanced just because one players gets to go first. Even if you did somehow create a completely tight and balanced game, the difference in player skill would make it such that you would only have a satisfying game playing an extremely small subset of players - the better you get, the fewer players you'd be able to have a truly competitive experience with.

Instead of worrying about tight and balancing, and chasing some unicorn into the depths of hell, just change your mindset such that these miniature games are cooperative experiences between players. Winning is a goal, not the purpose. The rules are not perfect and cannot be perfect, and thus it is up to the players, cooperatively, to create the kind of game experience the two of them would like to play. Something more narrative is fine, something more competitive is fine. The rules work for you, not vice versa. Since there is an extreme imbalance implied in playing strangers - don't do it. Spend a few minutes before each game becoming acquainted with each other, so that you are not strangers anymore. Figure out the kind of game the two of you want to experience and create some boundaries, for just the two of you, for just this singular game, to help create that experience. If you do that, then it doesn't matter if an expert and newbie both play because the boundaries you create, not the game, will make that game a worthwhile one.

40k is a poor cooperative game as well, though. Co-op games are things like Silver Tower, where players fight together against an "AI" opponent, or pen and paper RPGs, where the party (usually) works together to overcome the baddies thrown at them by the DM and complete their quest. 40k's only real focus seems to be "do something with these minis we sell."

Blastaar wrote:

40k is a poor cooperative game as well, though. Co-op games are things like Silver Tower, where players fight together against an "AI" opponent, or pen and paper RPGs, where the party (usually) works together to overcome the baddies thrown at them by the DM and complete their quest. 40k's only real focus seems to be "do something with these minis we sell."

This is a very narrow view Blastaar and I don't think it's entirely correct though I will agree that 40k is, mechanically speaking, at best, if not poor, then an extremely clunky interface. Fwiw, I've also seen plenty examples of RPGs that were not co-op.

'Collaborative' is probably a better word than cooperative, but the gist of what sqorgar is dating is right. Historically, Wargames were no different, Being cut from the exact same cloth and creative energy as RPGs in that collaborative behaviour from the players was a cornerstone of the game. And plenty, inclusing gw's own games had an umpire. RPGs and wargame share a lot of the same energy in terms of how a lot of players approach them and I think it's a mistake to just split them into 2 binary camps because one is adversarial and somehow that trumps everything else. There is nothing Incompatible with the idea of 2 players firstly collaborating on building an interesting/fair scenario, and then playing it out and trying to win it.

What he is referring to is less 'list-building-in-isolation', less 'list-building-for-advantage', and more -'collaborative game-building' with a focus on 'list-matching', often against a backdrop of a themed or specific scenario (mission, terrain set up etc).

It's far from unheard of - You'll often see this even today in historical groups. my group has done this for 5 years now.

Deadnight wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

40k is a poor cooperative game as well, though. Co-op games are things like Silver Tower, where players fight together against an "AI" opponent, or pen and paper RPGs, where the party (usually) works together to overcome the baddies thrown at them by the DM and complete their quest. 40k's only real focus seems to be "do something with these minis we sell."

This is a very narrow view Blastaar and I don't think it's entirely correct though I will agree that 40k is, mechanically speaking, at best, if not poor, then an extremely clunky interface. Fwiw, I've also seen plenty examples of RPGs that were not co-op.

'Collaborative' is probably a better word than cooperative, but the gist of what sqorgar is dating is right. Historically, Wargames were no different, Being cut from the exact same cloth and creative energy as RPGs in that collaborative behaviour from the players was a cornerstone of the game. And plenty, inclusing gw's own games had an umpire. RPGs and wargame share a lot of the same energy in terms of how a lot of players approach them and I think it's a mistake to just split them into 2 binary camps because one is adversarial and somehow that trumps everything else. There is nothing Incompatible with the idea of 2 players firstly collaborating on building an interesting/fair scenario, and then playing it out and trying to win it.

What he is referring to is less 'list-building-in-isolation', less 'list-building-for-advantage', and more -'collaborative game-building' with a focus on 'list-matching', often against a backdrop of a themed or specific scenario (mission, terrain set up etc).

It's far from unheard of - You'll often see this even today in historical groups. my group has done this for 5 years now.

Just for the sake of completeness: there is one other possible collaborative aproach to 40K, especially it's narrative variant, and it is one that I like the most - players come up with scenario, terrain and forces that represent a particular event and then try their best to collaboratively solve the resulting game, playing it out as close to optimal as dice allow. The result is a true battlefield narrative, without "omnipotent generals" skew and gamey "gotcha" moments that ruin the immersion, most closely representing the actual in-setting battle of two factions utilising rules as a simulation engine. Yes, I know this is rare approach, but it nicely shows, that 40K can be as adversarial or as collaborative as involved parties want it to be.

And there is absolutely nothing casual in such games - they require the same amount of investment, devotion and mental heavy lifting as competitive games. Only the goal of such games is entirely different.

Narrative play, competitive play, whatever play- that's all fine. Really. But those are attitudes players approach the game with. There isn't anything about the present rules, particularly its poor balance, that facilitates any approach all that well.

Blastaar wrote:
Narrative play, competitive play, whatever play- that's all fine. Really. But those are attitudes players approach the game with. There isn't anything about the present rules, particularly its poor balance, that facilitates any approach all that well.

You missed the point of what Deadnight and I wrote - in collaborative approach there is no such thing as balance issues - differences in power level of codices/codex entries are only scale factors to consider at scenario/lists creation stage. The biggest advantage of this style of play is that there are no gak choices - you can utilize any and all miniatures you may aesthetically like as long as you build the scenario accordingly. The only thing you don’t always use are numbers that GW provided.

However, I can agree with you that nature of 8th ed core rules combined with choices that GW made to deepen them make this particular edition the most unwieldy of all for any style of play.

nou wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Narrative play, competitive play, whatever play- that's all fine. Really. But those are attitudes players approach the game with. There isn't anything about the present rules, particularly its poor balance, that facilitates any approach all that well.

You missed the point of what Deadnight and I wrote - in collaborative approach there is no such thing as balance issues - differences in power level of codices/codex entries are only scale factors to consider at scenario/lists creation stage. The biggest advantage of this style of play is that there are no gak choices - you can utilize any and all miniatures you may aesthetically like as long as you build the scenario accordingly. The only thing you don’t always use are numbers that GW provided.

However, I can agree with you that nature of 8th ed core rules combined with choices that GW made to deepen them make this particular edition the most unwieldy of all for any style of play.

And, as always, the idea of coming together as friends to experience peace and love and harmony while we all collaborate together to create a wonderful experience based on mutually agreed modifications to the rules is a very nice one that is completely impractical for many people in practice.

People earlier were talking about auticus having a "narrow" view based on who they associate with, but if that accusation can be levelled against anybody then it is GW themselves. They constantly design games based on how they play them; as a regular group of mates with a similar approach to things. But that isn't how a huge portion of their audience actually play, because the options available to them are A: play pickup games with people you don't know or, at best, the odd infrequent casual acquaintance, or B: don't play at all.

If your only opportunity for gaming is to show up for a table booking at a store or to an evening at a club to play against random folk, then spending half the time you have available having a lovely cup of tea and a chat with your potential opponent to hash out some revised version of the rules or custom scenario that will give you both an enjoyable experience is a joke, since you won't have enough time left to play the actual sodding game.

And what's particularly irritating about the way people try and use the "friendly game of cricket wot wot" approach and glaringly obvious remarks about how perfect balance is impossible to dismiss criticism of GW's rules is that nobody is demanding perfect balance, merely balance adequate enough to support pickup gaming, and also that the presentation of this as some impossible dream is sheer nonsense given GW have done it before. And the example was brought up in this very discussion; 6th Ed WHFB was not perfectly balanced, but it was sufficiently balanced to support pickup gaming in a way that other editions and other games from GW haven't been, and it was still one of if not the most content-rich editions for the casual gentlemen crowd with endless addons and theme lists and extras.

If my experience was based solely on gaming in my garage with a handful of the same people all the time who could all agree to not break the game, then I can agree that rules may not be as big a deal to me.

That however is not where I am with games in general. I do public events so I need the rules to not be easily abused and busted wide open after 30 seconds of reading them.

nou wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Narrative play, competitive play, whatever play- that's all fine. Really. But those are attitudes players approach the game with. There isn't anything about the present rules, particularly its poor balance, that facilitates any approach all that well.

You missed the point of what Deadnight and I wrote - in collaborative approach there is no such thing as balance issues - differences in power level of codices/codex entries are only scale factors to consider at scenario/lists creation stage. The biggest advantage of this style of play is that there are no gak choices - you can utilize any and all miniatures you may aesthetically like as long as you build the scenario accordingly. The only thing you don’t always use are numbers that GW provided.

However, I can agree with you that nature of 8th ed core rules combined with choices that GW made to deepen them make this particular edition the most unwieldy of all for any style of play.

What happens if my collaborator(s) and I can't agree on everything? Say I want to bring a bunch of Deathwing, and my collaborator is unwilling to tweak their model selection to balance it, perhaps they don't even own sufficient quantities of the appropriate models, or are missing units entirely? Maybe we can't quite agree on the kind of scenario to play?

What many narrative players seem to be hung up on is that their idea of "narrative play" is creating their own scenarios, with their own fluff for why it is happening, and their own rules and restrictions. I just want narrative in "normal" bring-a-list-and-roll-up-the-mission-play. Even tournament games. The narrative is whatever happens while playing- I don't need to "write" the story, or force it to happen. Let it happen organically. But GW games are terrible for this. I can think of one moment, in all my 40k-ing, that is particularly memorable or "narrative." 7th edition, I was playing my DA against a knight list, and my RBK sergeant survived a full round of shooting from a knight, jinking like mad, and stole an objective on my next turn. And for that single moment, I didn't need to craft a special mission to make it happen.

Yodhrin wrote:

nou wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Narrative play, competitive play, whatever play- that's all fine. Really. But those are attitudes players approach the game with. There isn't anything about the present rules, particularly its poor balance, that facilitates any approach all that well.

You missed the point of what Deadnight and I wrote - in collaborative approach there is no such thing as balance issues - differences in power level of codices/codex entries are only scale factors to consider at scenario/lists creation stage. The biggest advantage of this style of play is that there are no gak choices - you can utilize any and all miniatures you may aesthetically like as long as you build the scenario accordingly. The only thing you don’t always use are numbers that GW provided.

However, I can agree with you that nature of 8th ed core rules combined with choices that GW made to deepen them make this particular edition the most unwieldy of all for any style of play.

And, as always, the idea of coming together as friends to experience peace and love and harmony while we all collaborate together to create a wonderful experience based on mutually agreed modifications to the rules is a very nice one that is completely impractical for many people in practice.

People earlier were talking about auticus having a "narrow" view based on who they associate with, but if that accusation can be levelled against anybody then it is GW themselves. They constantly design games based on how they play them; as a regular group of mates with a similar approach to things. But that isn't how a huge portion of their audience actually play, because the options available to them are A: play pickup games with people you don't know or, at best, the odd infrequent casual acquaintance, or B: don't play at all.

If your only opportunity for gaming is to show up for a table booking at a store or to an evening at a club to play against random folk, then spending half the time you have available having a lovely cup of tea and a chat with your potential opponent to hash out some revised version of the rules or custom scenario that will give you both an enjoyable experience is a joke, since you won't have enough time left to play the actual sodding game.

And what's particularly irritating about the way people try and use the "friendly game of cricket wot wot" approach and glaringly obvious remarks about how perfect balance is impossible to dismiss criticism of GW's rules is that nobody is demanding perfect balance, merely balance adequate enough to support pickup gaming, and also that the presentation of this as some impossible dream is sheer nonsense given GW have done it before. And the example was brought up in this very discussion; 6th Ed WHFB was not perfectly balanced, but it was sufficiently balanced to support pickup gaming in a way that other editions and other games from GW haven't been, and it was still one of if not the most content-rich editions for the casual gentlemen crowd with endless addons and theme lists and extras.

I think I can safely guarantee that most younger players, who didn't start in the Battletech/Rogue Trader era or thereabouts, are unlikely to have buddies who play something as involved and obscenely expensive as 40k. Mine don't. Pickup games were all I had before I broke free of the GW ecosystem. Skirmish games, sure, that's only 10-ish minis and maybe a couple $100 if you aren't attending tournaments regularly. But $600+ armies? Fully painted? Not likely. Even in wargaming, there are some strong generational differences. That money, and time, goes to Magic, video games, and board games.

Blastaar wrote:
What happens if my collaborator(s) and I can't agree on everything?

Jesus Christ, you compromise! If you can't figure out a way to agree on a completely optional entertainment experience with people who actually choose to engage with you, I hate to think what your coworkers and boss must think of working with you.

I think I can safely guarantee that most younger players, who didn't start in the Battletech/Rogue Trader era or thereabouts, are unlikely to have buddies who play something as involved and obscenely expensive as 40k. Mine don't. Pickup games were all I had before I broke free of the GW ecosystem. Skirmish games, sure, that's only 10-ish minis and maybe a couple $100 if you aren't attending tournaments regularly. But $600+ armies? Fully painted? Not likely. Even in wargaming, there are some strong generational differences. That money, and time, goes to Magic, video games, and board games.

Very few people start with a $600+ fully painted army with no opponents to play. The majority of miniature games have two-player starter sets that cost roughly the same price as a board game, that gives two players an easy and obvious in. I often shoulder the cost of starter sets and play with friends, who decide to invest in the game afterwards. Actually, GW games are the only ones this doesn't work with because GW's reputation (or rather the reputation of its players) precede it. Had one person who I played Warmachine with refuse to try out 40k with me because the 40k guys in his Facebook group are all jerks. They were so odious that he was unwilling to even try - for free - the game they play.

Maybe there isn't anything wrong with wargaming, there's just something wrong with wargamers.

Jesus Christ, you compromise! If you can't figure out a way to agree on a completely optional entertainment experience with people who actually choose to engage with you, I hate to think what your coworkers and boss must think of working with you.

I know you mean well... but I will say that a good many gamer personalities have a hard time compromising and that is why the official rules are such an important thing. If the rules are solid, there is no need to compromise.

If we had to spend our time compromising with people, or politicing or social engineering as I call it, a good number of people would abandon table top games in general in favor of video games or something else that has no compromise, and you just fire it up and play by its rules. Social engineering is exhausting and in many cases not worth the hassle for the reward in the end. If you have to play a bad ruleset and constantly compromise over it to get a good experience out of it, each individual will have to weigh if social engineering is worth the cost of playing that bad ruleset.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
What happens if my collaborator(s) and I can't agree on everything?

Jesus Christ, you compromise! If you can't figure out a way to agree on a completely optional entertainment experience with people who actually choose to engage with you, I hate to think what your coworkers and boss must think of working with you.

Don't insult me. My point is why the should any of us need to "compromise" so frequently just to enjoy the darn game? How is this situation acceptable? Only GW and the "Games Workshop Most Amazing Hobby TM" could get away with selling such poor rules. People would be screaming bloody murder if Corvus Belli or Wyrd released a new edition so awful. Even Magic players, as cardboard-crack addicted as they are now, don't tolerate horrific mistakes like the past year of op cards that have warped formats, spiked prices and finally been banned.

I think I can safely guarantee that most younger players, who didn't start in the Battletech/Rogue Trader era or thereabouts, are unlikely to have buddies who play something as involved and obscenely expensive as 40k. Mine don't. Pickup games were all I had before I broke free of the GW ecosystem. Skirmish games, sure, that's only 10-ish minis and maybe a couple $100 if you aren't attending tournaments regularly. But $600+ armies? Fully painted? Not likely. Even in wargaming, there are some strong generational differences. That money, and time, goes to Magic, video games, and board games.

Very few people start with a $600+ fully painted army with no opponents to play. The majority of miniature games have two-player starter sets that cost roughly the same price as a board game, that gives two players an easy and obvious in. I often shoulder the cost of starter sets and play with friends, who decide to invest in the game afterwards. Actually, GW games are the only ones this doesn't work with because GW's reputation (or rather the reputation of its players) precede it. Had one person who I played Warmachine with refuse to try out 40k with me because the 40k guys in his Facebook group are all jerks. They were so odious that he was unwilling to even try - for free - the game they play.

Maybe there isn't anything wrong with wargaming, there's just something wrong with wargamers.

 auticus wrote:
I know you mean well... but I will say that a good many gamer personalities have a hard time compromising and that is why the official rules are such an important thing. If the rules are solid, there is no need to compromise.

How do you pick who you play and when? Do you just show up at a random store and sit around with your box of models until someone shows up willing to play you? In my circle, we have a Facebook group. When we want to play, we'll post something like "hey, I'm free on Saturday. Anyone up for a game?" Someone will go, ah, I'd love to, but I can't make it until after 2. Okay, after 2 it is, but I got to pick up my kids at 3:30, so it'll have to be a shorter game. You see what we did? We worked out when we will play - compromising as needed.

This is how I assume most people get together and play. I'm just saying, take it one step further. "Okay, after 2 works great for me. I'm thinking of trying out a Necron list I found on the internet. Be sure to bring your toughest army" or "Okay, after 2 works great for me. I'm not looking for a high pressure game. I just want to chill and roll dice. Is that cool?" One extra sentence is all it takes to set up the expectations of the game you play.

If we had to spend our time compromising with people, or politicing or social engineering as I call it, a good number of people would abandon table top games in general in favor of video games or something else that has no compromise, and you just fire it up and play by its rules.

Maybe that's not a bad thing. The game is probably better off without people who are stubborn and unwilling to engage in the human aspect of playing games. Especially when they might see the act of "compromising" as "politicing or social engineering". People aren't little plastic soldiers. You don't minmax them or tell them what to do. You don't need to manipulate them. You just ask them.

If you have to play a bad ruleset and constantly compromise over it to get a good experience out of it, each individual will have to weigh if social engineering is worth the cost of playing that bad ruleset.

I've had a wonderful time with terrible games with great friends, and I've had my worst experiences ever playing Warmachine, which was considered the kind of "tight and balanced" ruleset you seem to be advocating for. It might be time to admit that your agenda is built around playing a very specific type of miniature game, and anyone or anything which doesn't directly contribute to that, you treat as an enemy... which is probably why you encounter so much hostility from the people you play with.

How do you pick who you play and when? Do you just show up at a random store and sit around with your box of models until someone shows up willing to play you?

There are three primary ways people play here.

1) the most common. they bring their army to the store on a weekend and ask for a random game.

2) tournaments. They get paired up against who they are told they are getting paired up against.

3) my public events. they are paired up against who they are told they are getting paired up against on campaign day and during the month there is a set schedule they play against set opponents.

To your first point - yes that is reasonable and what most people do.

Now where it falls apart for some people is when someone says "i just have a casual army so not looking to play a tournament army". At that point, there are three outcomes that will happen here.

A) the opponent will agree, and tone down to what he feels is adequate enough and the other person is fine.

B) the opponent will agree, and tone down means removing like a guy and still having a tourney powered list. The opponent will not be fine, and this game will generate bad feelings.

C) the opponent will lecture the other player that he is bringing a legal list and as long as its legal that should be good enough (meaning tournament powered)

I see all three pretty much equally. There is a fourth I have seen a few times the past few months.

D) both players unload their armies. One looks at the others, realizes he's lost before beginning, concedes the game and the two play a different game. That happens in 40k and AOS only.

"... just change your mindset" which translates roughly to CAAC. See? They do exist, but their tactic isn't break the rules to milk an advantage like the WAACs, their tactic is to bludgeon you with shame and bad feelings, so you don't have the gall to try to play competitively in their circles. Can't have that "wrongthink", after all...

Blastaar wrote:Narrative play, competitive play, whatever play- that's all fine. Really. But those are attitudes players approach the game with. There isn't anything about the present rules, particularly its poor balance, that facilitates any approach all that well.

And that's the crux of what I've been saying. A good, tight, balanced ruleset facilitates all three methods of play. Period. Slop rulesets facilitate the CAACs and the WAACs, and leave all the middle player base at their mercy.

auticus wrote:

How do you pick who you play and when? Do you just show up at a random store and sit around with your box of models until someone shows up willing to play you?

There are three primary ways people play here.

1) the most common. they bring their army to the store on a weekend and ask for a random game.

2) tournaments. They get paired up against who they are told they are getting paired up against.

3) my public events. they are paired up against who they are told they are getting paired up against on campaign day and during the month there is a set schedule they play against set opponents.

To your first point - yes that is reasonable and what most people do.

Now where it falls apart for some people is when someone says "i just have a casual army so not looking to play a tournament army". At that point, there are three outcomes that will happen here.

A) the opponent will agree, and tone down to what he feels is adequate enough and the other person is fine.

B) the opponent will agree, and tone down means removing like a guy and still having a tourney powered list. The opponent will not be fine, and this game will generate bad feelings.

C) the opponent will lecture the other player that he is bringing a legal list and as long as its legal that should be good enough (meaning tournament powered)

I see all three pretty much equally. There is a fourth I have seen a few times the past few months.

D) both players unload their armies. One looks at the others, realizes he's lost before beginning, concedes the game and the two play a different game. That happens in 40k and AOS only.

If I can't PUG with a miniatures wargame system, then it is totally useless to me.

Yeah. I used to be pretty CAAC/"forge the narrative"/"Bad rules are fine for narrative reasons."

But honestly, the best rules for narrative have the following qualities:

1) Accurately reproduce the background. 40k has basically never done this, regrettably.

2) Are balanced. Think of rules as the structural materials out of which you build your narrative - the more spongey and rotten the materials are, the less useful they are for precision architecture, and the more difficult it becomes to have a finely-crafted scenario that truly captures the background of the game.