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 ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

If someone is doing something they don't enjoy for a hobby, I feel they have a problem on some level? To be clear, I'm OK with them enjoying not enjoying something. I am just wondering why they put themselves through suffering for a hobby. I enjoy 40K. If that stops I will stop. It has happened before. Weird eh?

Wargaming in person is about having somewhat shared expectations, or at least being honest about them. There is give and take. It is the wonder and curse of tabletop wargaming.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Gert wrote:
Thats not what people mean when they talk about being a casual player. Lying down and staring at the sky is casual in the sense that you aren't really doing anything, causal in terms of 40k means "not-competetive". I'm a casual wargame player but that doesn't mean I liked it when for two editions CSM were extremely annoying to play because their rules were pathetic and had maybe five units that were in any way competitive. I just changed my perspective from "am I going to win?" to "am I having a fun time". Warhammer is casual to me because there is nothing forcing me to do anything I don't want to. I don't have super restrictive criteria to meet or regulations to follow to have a good time. I can just plop some models on a table and roll some number cubes.

If you were casual you'd play 40k with grey units and empty bases, proxy things you may never buy, and try different armies just to experience different styles of play. I did this for years in my early 20s playing floor wars on an almost but not exactly 4' x 6' rug. We had minimal cash and modeling investment and played more games in a weekend than most of us do in a month these days.

That's casual.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Gert wrote:
causal in terms of 40k means "not-competetive".
Which is an absurdity brought about by the terrible balance 40k has had for such a long time.

When I play monopoly with the family, it's hard to get more "casual" than that, but it's most certainly "competitive". If I go play some basketball with the guys after work, again, pretty damned "casual", but you can bet everyone is playing "competitively". Indeed if someone shows up and isn't trying to win, they're a bore to play against.

I know those are examples of games with much simpler rules, but it is an example just to highlight how silly this separation of "casual" and "competitive" sounds in the broader sense of versus style games.

I'm a casual wargame player but that doesn't mean I liked it when for two editions CSM were extremely annoying to play because their rules were pathetic and had maybe five units that were in any way competitive. I just changed my perspective from "am I going to win?" to "am I having a fun time". Warhammer is casual to me because there is nothing forcing me to do anything I don't want to. I don't have super restrictive criteria to meet or regulations to follow to have a good time. I can just plop some models on a table and roll some number cubes.


I don't know if you meant it to sound that way, but reading that just made me think you've been beaten into submission so many times you had to let go of caring to enjoy yourself, like some sort of zen experience. Like, if you're going to be whipped everyday, better learn to enjoy it

That's the problem, a game being competitive is good for casuals, so I don't know why casuals are so anti-competitive. It's only in this weird ol' world of 40k where casual has come to mean "not trying to win".

In real terms, (not 40k's special definitions) I've only ever been into casual games, I rarely if ever play tournaments, mostly play pick up games or games with a few close friends, I'm not breaking down and crying if I lose and I still have fun if I don't win.... yet I still TRY to win, and I still care when the rules are broken and unbalanced, otherwise I'd just be building dioramas.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 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?


Oh the topics do exist see my old editions topic, or Mezmorkis prohammer topic just as examples-
They are just not the majority.


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796101.page


You will notice that we play older editions of the game where lore/fluff was far more important to how the game played to make it feel like the 40K universe. the fact is that every war gamer wants a chance to win but not all war gamers get enjoyment from the game out of JUST winning. some prefer painting or modeling some prefer the game play experience..

The big thing GW lost in the design department was having the armies be both viable and fluffy for a strategic war game.

This is why the 3.5 chaos dex is always held in such high respect. it was the high water mark for chaos, no dex since has even come close to it.

There has always been a segment of meta chasing WAAC (win at all costs) "power gamers" especially after GW instituted the local rogue trader and larger grand tournaments back in 3rd edition.
those players would work at finding ways to run army combos are twist rules in such a way to give them an unfair advantage in a way the designers admitted they never intended.

Instead of playing the models you think "look cool" or building the force in the way it should behave. it becomes a focus on how well a unit "earns it's points back"

This has become especially true with the design direction of 9th where the competitive players were the ones GW went to for advice when they were designing it.

Sure they threw a bone in there with "crusade" but the majority of players do not play it in 9th.

This sadly means that while GW works to price players out of the game making it a rich mans hobby they have also seen a sizable segment of the player base walk away from the game or be on the verge of doing so because it is such a different game than what we know 40K used to feel like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which is an absurdity brought about by the terrible balance 40k has had for such a long time.


We just talked about the subject last night at the FLGS, do you realize there are currently 23 factions in the current 40K line?

warmachine/hordes currently has 15 and bloat has become a problem for them as well even though the focus and scale of the game is much more skirmish/smaller


There should be at most about 10 with a few sub-faction supplements like they used to do with the dark angels mini-dex in 3rd for unique faction army lists/special characters & wargear.
USRs were great for the game and should have never been removed.

By having so many different factions and a need to make them be different enough to draw players they have made it impossible to balance the game in the way competitive players want.

Much like BFG still is, 40K (and WHFB ) used to be understood that each faction had certain strengths and weaknesses(aka they were not "balanced" on purpose) that each play had to use or exploit to out general his enemy where points cost mattered internally instead of comparing the performance of a unit of one faction to a unit of the another faction with the comparative battlefield role.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 02:00:52




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 aphyon wrote:
This is why the 3.5 chaos dex is always held in such high respect. it was the high water mark for chaos, no dex since has even come close to it.

Just ignore that it was so good that its fluffy lists could beat most tuned but not optimized lists... When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.

There has always been a segment of meta chasing WAAC (win at all costs) "power gamers" especially after GW instituted the local rogue trader and larger grand tournaments back in 3rd edition. Those players would work at finding ways to run army combos are twist rules in such a way to give them an unfair advantage in a way the designers admitted they never intended.

Playing the game to the letter of the rules isn't WAAC, it's playing by RAW. GW could write unambiguous rules and close loopholes if they do slip through, but they've *never* made that a priority. So how is it the fault of the players that they've chosen to play with the text of the book and not some nebulous sprite that people claim exists within the book?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
...More than anything though, rather than 'bans', (we're not talking about cancelling things out of the game! Everything g has it's place. Maybe not all the time under every circumstance, but certainly, where its appropriate...) I'd suggest accommodations and different approaches - essentislly 'list-matching' (note, not list tailoring, there is a difference!) rather rather than 'list-building-for-advantage. If you want to bring your souped up tourney list, or a skew list, it's fair game that the other guy knows so he can bring something thay can play on the same level. If he wants to bring his d-list, well, if he's willing to play at your level, be a decent chap and return the gesture.


Cool. Now what happens when you don't have the expertise to tell the difference between the A-list and the D-list? What happens when one newbie decides they want to play Primaris Marines and another decides they want to play CSM? Who's fault is it that someone bought an A-list Codex and someone else bought a D-list Codex?


This is exactly my problem with the idea that balance isn't a problem for casual play, and if you have balance concerns as a casual player you're really some tournament WAACer in disguise.

Yes, they'll learn through experience that one list is A-tier and the other is D-tier. 'Experience' here means a series of one-sided battles where the outcome is decided more by the list than by the gameplay. And that's not fun. It's no fun at all to get stomped while you slowly come to realize that oh, this game's balance is pretty bad.

Sure, you can look up advice on the Internet. And then you find that if you want to pursue that fluffy army concept you had, you'll lose every game; if you want to stand a chance you need to drop that unit you liked but which sucks immensely, rearrange your other choices because what's fluffy isn't what's optimal, and take a few meta units that you otherwise had zero interest in, and then you'll be able to go up against the A-lister army.

But don't worry, you'll get the hang of which units are bad and which are good. In fact, maybe you'll get the hang of it faster than your buddy, and then you get to explain why he needs to drop a few overpowered units from his army to make the scenario fair, while in his mind you're being completely unreasonable and he's only been winning because he's better at the game. That's just such a super fun conversation for casual play too.

This is all nonsense. Even designers making explicitly casual games put time and effort into playtesting to make sure the game is fun, has a balance of outcomes, and provides player agency. Casual games with strong imbalance that need houserules or an expert-level understanding of the game dynamic to make fair are commonly known as bad fething games. Make a good casual game and these requirements to referee your own game go away. I never needed this same level of pre-game negotiation and Internet meta researching with Warmachine and I currently don't with Infinity.


   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Just ignore that it was so good that its fluffy lists could beat most tuned but not optimized lists... When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


I still regularly play against the 3.5 chaos dex in our hybrid 5th ed games (just did battle with iron warriors last night) and i can guarantee you that they still have to work for it.

The bigger draw is how the armies behave in a manner they should in the lore translated onto the table top.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Canadian 5th wrote:
When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 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.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


1000's of people worldwide enjoying this game is more proof than is needed to show your opinion that it's "trash" is worthless. Your specific gameplay may be terrible, but that goes against most of the population that continues to play 40K.

Thousands of people can enjoy trash just because of an absurd attachment to the IP.

Would you even seriously say that, if a new company released a game with the same exact rules, it would be well received? Absolutely not, they would be laughed at for thinking it was even close to being a finished ruleset.


Again, you are projecting your viewpoint as some form of community standard, and you're totally wrong again.
My 2 other games I play....

Flames of War
Team Yankee.

Not far removed from 40k rules and still very enjoyable.

I'm just not sure what you're aiming for here...
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 catbarf wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Seconded.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 aphyon wrote:
By having so many different factions and a need to make them be different enough to draw players they have made it impossible to balance the game in the way competitive players want.

Much like BFG still is, 40K (and WHFB ) used to be understood that each faction had certain strengths and weaknesses(aka they were not "balanced" on purpose) that each play had to use or exploit to out general his enemy where points cost mattered internally instead of comparing the performance of a unit of one faction to a unit of the another faction with the comparative battlefield role.


You're confusing balance with parity.

Armies can have different strengths and weaknesses and still be on a whole balanced against each other. Maybe there might be good match ups and bad match ups, but on a whole there wouldn't be good armies and bad armies.

Often you don't even have to compare a unit to one in another faction, it's quite often the case that a choice in your own faction is objectively bad compared to another choice in your own faction.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 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.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


1000's of people worldwide enjoying this game is more proof than is needed to show your opinion that it's "trash" is worthless. Your specific gameplay may be terrible, but that goes against most of the population that continues to play 40K.

Thousands of people can enjoy trash just because of an absurd attachment to the IP.

Would you even seriously say that, if a new company released a game with the same exact rules, it would be well received? Absolutely not, they would be laughed at for thinking it was even close to being a finished ruleset.


Again, you are projecting your viewpoint as some form of community standard, and you're totally wrong again.
My 2 other games I play....

Flames of War
Team Yankee.

Not far removed from 40k rules and still very enjoyable.

I'm just not sure what you're aiming for here...

Answer the question presented.

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 us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

You're confusing balance with parity


In this case what the comp players are looking for it is the same thing.

both players having an equal shot at winning is the ideal balance VS winning is only viable if i take these specific units/resources out of my entire army selection and ignore the rest so they overpower anything my enemy can bring.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Deadnight wrote:
...Firstly, it's no one's 'fault'. Let's step away from this 'blame' culture.

Seckndly, what happens? Like in real life, if you make a mistake or a misjudgement, you learn from it and move on, and use it to inform your future game building. Surely those newbies should have researched first, or surely, we, as veterans of the hobby should offer a guiding hand to said newbies. They take a d grade list? Compliment them on their paint jobs, make them welcome, encourage them for the future, offer tips and guidance, play down your list to the level that they can take a few swings - hey, they're new, you really gonna be a seal clubber? And over time, you'll be their awesome guy who made them love their hobby. Or, you know. Crush them because you want a scalp.


If there's a mismatch, aim to improve. Folks like yourself who are into the competitive circuit will no doubt have zero issues with playing their tourney lists with the aim of both refining their lists and aiming to improve their abilities over time. I genuinly doubt you can out of a uterus as a fully formed and fully levelled up competitive player with an instinctive grasp of top table play. No you started somewhere, you learned, you proby made terrible lists and lost a lot, and over time, you got better. What makes you think alternative perspectives and approaches would be any different?

Personally I find games building and list matching to be a far more intriguing test of someone's skills than 'can they max out the mathematically best options in a codex'. Not that I'm dismissing the latter either.


Which is why people don't talk about casual play. There is no casual play. If you want to play 40k you have to sign up to do research, balance matchups yourself, take minis that are good rather than minis you like, and get stomped because you bought the wrong models until you have the expertise to figure out which models are playable and which models aren't. You can't plonk models you like down, throw dice, and have a good time, because someone's going to get tabled immediately because they bought a D-list book that nobody on the design team has given two gaks about for fifteen years.

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 ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 catbarf wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I guess the 3.5e era chaos army sitting behind me and the games I've played both with and against it must never have happened then... That book with only the barest bit of optimization roundly stomped just about everything else that came against it and easily shifted the odds in favor of the player using it for the better. Yes, it was also fluffy, for a particular vision of CSM fluff as it existed at the time, but if you took it and nerfed it until it was, at its best, a slightly below average codex and at its worst wholly uncompetitive nobody would give a whit about how fluffy it is.

EDIT: To put it in a modern context, does anybody give a flying feth about how fluffy GSC and Tau lists are given that they just don't function in 9e? Would you be happy if the designs doubled down on fluffy but worthless rules in their next codex without addressing the issues that make them virtually unplayable? Would you keep playing your own army if, tomorrow, GW came down and raised your points by 15% across the board but gave you some really fluffy rules that work against a few very specific matchups that you'll never see in a PUG gaming setting?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 04:05:33


 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

EDIT: To put it in a modern context, does anybody give a flying feth about how fluffy GSC and Tau lists are given that they just don't function in 9e? Would you be happy if the designs doubled down on fluffy but worthless rules in their next codex without addressing the issues that make them virtually unplayable? Would you keep playing your own army if, tomorrow, GW came down and raised your points by 15% across the board but gave you some really fluffy rules that work against a few very specific matchups that you'll never see in a PUG gaming setting?

You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 AnomanderRake wrote:


Which is why people don't talk about casual play. There is no casual play. If you want to play 40k you have to sign up to do research, balance matchups yourself, take minis that are good rather than minis you like, and get stomped because you bought the wrong models until you have the expertise to figure out which models are playable and which models aren't. You can't plonk models you like down, throw dice, and have a good time, because someone's going to get tabled immediately because they bought a D-list book that nobody on the design team has given two gaks about for fifteen years.


I disagree because that's exactly how my group is playing. The models you like or have painted last dictate the list more often than not as well as the theme. Yes, balancing matchups can also appear when someone says: I saw that video about competitive Tau lists and realized I actually have the miniatures needed for that, I'd like to try it out. But usually people just use what they like, maybe do slight tailoring because we tell each other beforehand which faction we bring. I'd also add this works much better since 8th because balance has vastly improved.
As usual for every wargame I know fun mostly comes from the missions you play, 9th lacks a bit behind in that aspect because it has few narrative missions - but we wrote these in passed editions and we can do so now.
Is this casual in the meaning of the word? I don't know because english is not my first language but for me it's what I understand as "casual".
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Which is why people don't talk about casual play. There is no casual play. If you want to play 40k you have to sign up to do research, balance matchups yourself, take minis that are good rather than minis you like, and get stomped because you bought the wrong models until you have the expertise to figure out which models are playable and which models aren't. You can't plonk models you like down, throw dice, and have a good time, because someone's going to get tabled immediately because they bought a D-list book that nobody on the design team has given two gaks about for fifteen years.


I disagree because that's exactly how my group is playing. The models you like or have painted last dictate the list more often than not as well as the theme. Yes, balancing matchups can also appear when someone says: I saw that video about competitive Tau lists and realized I actually have the miniatures needed for that, I'd like to try it out. But usually people just use what they like, maybe do slight tailoring because we tell each other beforehand which faction we bring. I'd also add this works much better since 8th because balance has vastly improved.
As usual for every wargame I know fun mostly comes from the missions you play, 9th lacks a bit behind in that aspect because it has few narrative missions - but we wrote these in passed editions and we can do so now.
Is this casual in the meaning of the word? I don't know because english is not my first language but for me it's what I understand as "casual".


that is pretty well it. i just built up my full scale mechanicus list (as opposed to my epic list hat i could never afford to buy in full scale) and i wanted to try it out., i only make 1 list to fight everybody and i don't have any need/desire to change it. every now and then for funsies we do silly things on purpose like a few weeks back we did an entire infantry only battle to get some of those less common models on to the table (they are usually parts of different armies/lists but never together at the same time).

We don't care which of the 16 primaris LTs are the best or how many of the 34 strats your using from your faction etc...because those things are not important in the older versions of the game.

What is important is the fact white scars are always mounted, khorne berserkers go nuts even when it isn't good for them, eldar are obsessed with their specific warrior aspects to the ignorance of all else, that tau use technology to their advantage while moving and shooting-giving ground to win battles, DKOK are masters of artillery and trench warfare etc...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 04:42:48




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.

I'll do everything in my power to give your list a fluffy theme that I know to be weak in practice and do my best to do the same for my army but going the opposite direction. I'll even write up a nice 4-page scenario for how the battle came to happen and what the exact stakes are. Are you down to play such a game with me and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly? How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's? Would the fluff still matter then?
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Canadian 5th wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.

I'll do everything in my power to give your list a fluffy theme that I know to be weak in practice and do my best to do the same for my army but going the opposite direction. I'll even write up a nice 4-page scenario for how the battle came to happen and what the exact stakes are. Are you down to play such a game with me and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly? How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's? Would the fluff still matter then?
This dude is literally making a fight me IRL argument LOL.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.
I've been calling 9th Edition "Tournament Edition" since it came out, as everything appears to have been built and catered to the tournament/event crowd.

I mean, they even talked up all the groups - all event running groups heavily into the tournament scene - that helped them test this edition (yet somehow they kept the Codices from them). It's why the missions are all so dull and are all the same. It's why the scoring system now mirrors tournament scoring. It's why Maelstrom is gone (WD betas notwithstanding).

This is an edition built from the ground up to be for tournaments by the people who play in them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 05:14:10


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 Canadian 5th wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.

I'll do everything in my power to give your list a fluffy theme that I know to be weak in practice and do my best to do the same for my army but going the opposite direction. I'll even write up a nice 4-page scenario for how the battle came to happen and what the exact stakes are. Are you down to play such a game with me and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly? How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's? Would the fluff still matter then?


Speculation at best, the fluff lists from 3rd ed were not weak in practice so unless you are trying to design one list for failure you really cannot achieve that outcome.

The following are examples of armies that are both viable and built to the lore/fluff based rules from various older editions.






















This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/03 05:22:36




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Canadian 5th wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I guess the 3.5e era chaos army sitting behind me and the games I've played both with and against it must never have happened then... That book with only the barest bit of optimization roundly stomped just about everything else that came against it and easily shifted the odds in favor of the player using it for the better. Yes, it was also fluffy, for a particular vision of CSM fluff as it existed at the time, but if you took it and nerfed it until it was, at its best, a slightly below average codex and at its worst wholly uncompetitive nobody would give a whit about how fluffy it is.

On the one hand, I'm pretty sure I could dig up a quote from you saying that "individual anecdotes about player experience are worthless", which would include yours.

On the other hand, my individual anecdote about Chaos 3.5 is that I routinely roflstomped it with my loyalists.

So take your choice

But more to the point, I loved that book even though I didn't play Chaos. And I didn't love it for the super competetive stuff. I loved it for the flavorful options and imagery it evoked. It was just a fun book to make armies with!

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.
I've been calling 9th Edition "Tournament Edition" since it came out, as everything appears to have been built and catered to the tournament/event crowd.

I mean, they even talked up all the groups - all event running groups heavily into the tournament scene - that helped them test this edition (yet somehow they kept the Codices from them). It's why the missions are all so dull and are all the same. It's why the scoring system now mirrors tournament scoring. It's why Maelstrom is gone (WD betas notwithstanding).

This is an edition built from the ground up to be for tournaments by the people who play in them.



Have you played Crusade? Its far from anything like tournament play.

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

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Amishprn86 wrote:
...Have you played Crusade? Its far from anything like tournament play.


Except for the fact that if you don't do your netlist research and make sure to use models that are good rather than models you like you can and will still get tabled in two turns every game. I know there are people that have a fine time playing Crusade, but if you already don't like 9th Crusade doesn't fix anything.

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
Fixture of Dakka






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
...Have you played Crusade? Its far from anything like tournament play.


Except for the fact that if you don't do your netlist research and make sure to use models that are good rather than models you like you can and will still get tabled in two turns every game. I know there are people that have a fine time playing Crusade, but if you already don't like 9th Crusade doesn't fix anything.


Then that is not a causal environment, see my other posts, it takes 2 to want a good game. If 1 person is being that guy then give them time outs (aka don't play with them).

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

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.


Define "pool of available options". Same codex? All 3e codex?, All the options (Codex + FW + WD + Journal, etc) in 3e?
I will warn you, I don't consider 3e DE an option as I don't play with models I don't like. Since the only two models in the DE range of that era I liked were the two slave girls from Vects raider.... Well, it's pretty hard to make an army out of 2 models that didn't have rules.


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Are you down to play such a game with me


I'm a bit lazy these days, and I only play in-person, so you'll have to come to my local shop if you want a game. Bust out your passport & proof of vaccination. And bring a mask as the shop requires it atm.


 Canadian 5th wrote:
and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly?


F* no. That's why there's different missions, new scenarios, you alter game sizes up/down etc. Even the boardgames I play are highly variable.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's?


Define "a student's budget".... I can do quite a bit with limited resources though.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Would the fluff still matter then?


Always.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 05:48:15


 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Insectum7 wrote:
On the one hand, I'm pretty sure I could dig up a quote from you saying that "individual anecdotes about player experience are worthless", which would include yours.

On the other hand, my individual anecdote about Chaos 3.5 is that I routinely roflstomped it with my loyalists.

So take your choice

But more to the point, I loved that book even though I didn't play Chaos. And I didn't love it for the super competetive stuff. I loved it for the flavorful options and imagery it evoked. It was just a fun book to make armies with!

A game must be designed around just such anecdotes even though any given one of them fails to represent the entire truth of the game. A game should strive to be as fun as it can be as often as it can be and in as many circumstances as it can be. It should be designed in such a way that, outside of rare events, it only produces positive anecdotes from its core audience and generally garners praise from those that may only align with one or two of its many game design goals. Can you truthfully say that 40k has ever managed this and that it has gotten closer to meeting these logical aims with every passing edition?

 aphyon wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.

I'll do everything in my power to give your list a fluffy theme that I know to be weak in practice and do my best to do the same for my army but going the opposite direction. I'll even write up a nice 4-page scenario for how the battle came to happen and what the exact stakes are. Are you down to play such a game with me and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly? How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's? Would the fluff still matter then?


Speculation at best, the fluff lists from 3rd ed were not weak in practice so unless you are trying to design one list for failure you really cannot achieve that outcome.

The following are examples of armies that are both viable and built to the lore/fluff based rules from various older editions.




















Every army you've listed here is either Imperium or Eldar... How about if I made a fluffy list designed around a pocket of a Tyranid swarm that was running extremely light on leader beats and primarily composed of gants and other creatures that don't function well when left to making instinctive behavior rolls? That is a perfectly fluffy list and yet one that I doubt you would win many games with.

ccs wrote:
Define "pool of available options". Same codex? All 3e codex?, All the options (Codex + FW + WD + Journal, etc) in 3e?
I will warn you, I don't consider 3e DE an option as I don't play with models I don't like. Since the only two models in the DE range of that era I liked were the two slave girls from Vects raider.... Well, it's pretty hard to make an army out of 2 models that didn't have rules.

I pick your entire list from codex to wargear using the entire range of options that existed at the end of 3rd edition. I then write fluff for that list that matches with the lore as it stood at the end of 3rd edition. I do this with the aim of giving you the least mechanically functional list that the fluff allows for.

For my own list, I'll do the same but with the aim of making the most mechanically viable force that can be justified by the fluff.


F* no. That's why there's different missions, new scenarios, you alter game sizes up/down etc. Even the boardgames I play are highly variable.

I've just described playing 3e with a bad list that you can't afford to upgrade in a shop full of players with better lists. Given how basic that editions matched play scenarios were even that doesn't offer much solace to such an unfortunate soul.

Define "a student's budget".... I can do quite a bit with limited resources though.

Minimum wage @ 24 hours per week, minus the cost of average living expenses for the area you live in, and assuming that this student only spends 25% of his remaining discretionary budget on this hobby and doesn't have more than a few hours per week to devote to the game. I'm literally aiming to show 40k at its worst here to prove that it is fundamentally broken.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/03 05:58:47


 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Every army you've listed here is either Imperium or Eldar... How about if I made a fluffy list designed around a pocket of a Tyranid swarm that was running extremely light on leader beats and primarily composed of gants and other creatures that don't function well when left to making instinctive behavior rolls? That is a perfectly fluffy list and yet one that I doubt you would win many games with.




I used those examples as they were the easiest and most obvious to find and identify.
As it so happens i have recently run a themed tyranid all assault army using the 4th ed codex and it worked just fine and i even used it against the 3.5 khorne berserker army (and won) from the codex you seem to think is an auto win button.

BTW Instinctive behavior rolls were the 5th ed codex and did not matter with the 4th dex (which is still overall the best nid codex for thematic play) and it is easy to counter by bringing enough synapse if you choose to go that route.





This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 06:08:48




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 AnomanderRake wrote:


Which is why people don't talk about casual play. There is no casual play. If you want to play 40k you have to sign up to do research, balance matchups yourself, take minis that are good rather than minis you like, and get stomped because you bought the wrong models until you have the expertise to figure out which models are playable and which models aren't. You can't plonk models you like down, throw dice, and have a good time, because someone's going to get tabled immediately because they bought a D-list book that nobody on the design team has given two gaks about for fifteen years.


This, and If they do not do it, then really bad things can happen. The whole play what you want thing is nice in theory, but in reality if you didn't pick one of the armies, which have units that can carry the stuff you like, then it is not very enjoyable to play with and against an army, which will not just lose, but rather not participate in the game.

And then comes the extra stuff like, if your army isn't fully painted you get a handicap, so big that you lose the game each time.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: