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.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
For casual games the rules seem a lot more fun, some of the random terrain features(poor fire warrior squad that ended up in a carnivorous forest with an exploding objective, but they were my opponents so ).

Small things like that can make the game more interesting and when people are less competitive and joking back and forth it's much more fun to play. Don't get me wrong local tournaments can be fun but I have no interest in going to a larger tournament.

I had an extra immortal gauss blaster, so I gave it to my friend who plays space wolves. He had to remove one of the tubes to get it to fit on his marine, so we made a story for it. The phase out (or self destruct) system in an immortal defected causing him to stay on the battle field. The wolf marine gave the blaster to a space wolf scientist. Being a space wolf scientist, he was an idiot and said that the tube was useless and the weapon was lighter without it. That was the tube that supplied stabilizing plasmas. Now on a roll to hit of 1 the gun explodes with the small blast and everyone under it takes a Str4 AP5 gauss rule hit. The wolf is then unarmed for the rest of the game, assuming he survives, other than his bolt pistol. (This is my happy face!) (this is my laughing face!) (this is my equivalent of the top right orkmoticon with glasses!)

 Sephyr wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:

You state that GW is "waging war" - how is that not overly emotional and inflamatory?
You stated that the Hobby was becoming elitest by actually catering for non tournament players - again over the top statement.[/color]2)

Could it be he was employing a metaphor or otherwise colorful language? We're not writing quarterly reports here, you know.

And it could be just me, but a game favoring those with the cash to buy more multiples of $45-60 models around the cheap 100-point mark than the other guy leans both toward elitism and anti-competitiveness.

Maybe but when he also says to me - I will have to assume that you are either deliberately misreading or are so emotional on the issue that further discussion is pointless" I kind of feel like calling a pot kettle black

If you are playing non competative games peope, are normally fine with reasonable proxies - I know I am - Hell i lend people one of my armies if then need them armies- its the tournament scene that specifically requires the outlay of specific models to win

Not just the tournament, no. My club and others in my region disocurage prozying that is not actual conversion work. Though it is true that many of the rules from tournaments bleed down into club and store play.

Also, the line for 'reasonable' proxying is a blurry one. I've seen rhino proxies made of legos and plasticard vendettas in play. Some of my friends are appalled, others don't much care.

Why should I care if competitive gameplay is killed off? 40k has never been competitive, people are bending the rules playing it as such.

personally, if GW does "succeed" in making 40k a narrative RPG, then it will actually force players to think about how to construct their army to fit with the story (i.e. battle) at hand instead of just net-building and playing the same game every time. the thing i enjoy most about 40k is that if you are playing with the right people, every single game is different! and with all of the options GW has given us already (the entire catalog of models + our own conversions + using models from other games, etc) why should there ever be 2 armies that are the same?

granted, i played magic for 12 years competitively and non, and if i learned anything from that, it is that the rogue always wins (if he has planned accordingly). when things get overly competitive, you then run into situations where everyone is playing the same thing and the game becomes a static, sad excuse for a game until the update arrives.

i am all in for competitive role-playing, where even if you lose the battle, you could still end up winning the war (don't know how tourneys really work, but award points for story, uniqueness, etc)

i think for a lot of players, it is a hobby first anyway and a GAME second. note that it is really just a game, and one that is so unique and personal, that you can really play it however you'd like (pending opponent). to sit here and worry about it becoming more than a game, a more in depth story-telling game that invokes the imagination and inspires people to come together to have fun and be involved in something more, well, that is just foolish and ignorant. creativity, in any area of life, whether it be a game or a job or a hobby, should always be rewarded greater than he/she who "wins" otherwise.

besides, it is still based on rolling dice and random chance events. even the most experienced and competitive of players can still lose to a noob. i've done it and i have had it happen to me plenty of times as well. the only competition there should ever be is to see who can have the most fun with it :]

 Captain Avatar wrote:
When you combine a very *meh* non-competitive 6th ed release

Purely opinionated.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
increased imbalance between the factions

This is a fallacy through and through; army balance is at its best in the new edition thanks to allies and forts.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
and then add their recent move to stop the tourney friendly Army Builder

Exactly how is AB a tournament software? It is no different no matter what type of player you are.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?

They won't succeed because (a) it never was a competitive game, and (b) they are not stupid and they wouldn't discourage people from buying their product and using it whatever the purpose is.

allibator wrote:
personally, if GW does "succeed" in making 40k a narrative RPG, then it will actually force players to think about how to construct their army to fit with the story (i.e. battle) at hand instead of just net-building and playing the same game every time.

Yesss. I'll ge to -really- flesh out my Archon's House and lineage, the rivals he bested on his way to power, his manic dreams of conquest and the byzantine web of intrigue and epic woe that he both unleashes upon others and finds crashing back on himself...

...before he is curb-stomped by a random termi with a power fist os insta-killed by a nameless GK with a psycannon .

And then he is cloned by a loyal Haemonculus.

And then blown apart by a leman russ.

And then he is cloned by a loyal Haemonculus.

Story of Dark Eldar life, really.

 Testify wrote:
I know competative people.

And I know people who play 40k.

The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.

Staggeringly wrong; to a degree close to a loss of all credibility.

40k can be played as a competition or as a narrative. How it is played is up to the parties involved before each gaming venture. I can play a tournament one day, and that night play a totally fluffy narrative game for pure and raw fun.

Facts.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I know competative people.

And I know people who play 40k.

The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.

Staggeringly wrong; to a degree close to a loss of all credibility.

40k can be played as a competition or as a narrative. How it is played is up to the parties involved before each gaming venture. I can play a tournament one day, and that night play a totally fluffy narrative game for pure and raw fun.

Facts.

Heck, sometimes it can be a competition AND a narrative. I know, the mind boggles! One of my friends was planning a 40k campaign baed on Planetaru Empires where all the generals would start on a map-grid and then battle each other to take control on the planet's regions and strategic assets until one finall wins.

But I guess that being somewhat balanced across all armies would really ruin the narrative immersion! Alas, such a fleeting muse, cinematics!

 Sephyr wrote:
But I guess that being somewhat balanced across all armies would really ruin the narrative immersion! Alas, such a fleeting muse, cinematics!

But, codex balance is at an all-time high?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

We wrote:The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.

It's worth remembering that the 80s and the 90s didn't have as many alternatives to tabletop W40K as the 2000s.

Battletech was out in 1984, and while I didn't start it at that time, was a fun game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miniature_wargames

Here, check this, there's plenty in the 80's and 90's

My bad, I wasn't clear enough.

By alternatives I meant stuff such as computer games.

The general consensus that I'm seeing is that 40k can't be turned into a narrative game, because it is one already. But at the same time, it's a competitive table-top game. I see no conflict here, my friends and I play to win, but I have a made-up craftworld and paint scheme, as my ork friend has made a new clan (and colors). Tournament circuits won't fade, and players won't stop making up things. Life goes on. Gws can imbalance things all they want, but we'll still keep playing, if only in an effort to survive until the next update

I think GW is simply the most cynical gaming company in the industry, and realizes that despite being a pretty lousy tournament game, people will want to try to play 40k as such. They're commited customers.

You don't grow a brand by getting people that will always buy your product to like it more. You grow it by getting more people to buy it.

There is nothign in 6th edition that tournament play won't fix over time. If casual players like it more, than GW sells more, and gets Nova and Adepticon to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

As an aside: I make this plea in everything thread along these lines, and it's rarely heeded. Tournament players, and the guys at clubs and shops that bring nasty net-lists to demolish newbs, are rarely the same guys. An actually skilled tournament player gets nothing out of spending two hours wiping the floor with a palooka. They want a challenge and they want to get better. Guys that bring that kind of game to 40k night at the FLGS are no more "competive" 40k players than the hardcore guy on the company softball team is a professional ballplayer.

One thing I've always wondered about this whole 'net-list' mentality. Can someone please point in the direction of where one could find these so called net-lists.

I've scoured many 40k forums and have not once come across this magical repository of super hard, ultra-competive army lists. I've seen plenty of threads where people discuss what is good/bad about codex and I've seen people post army-lists and get comments/criticism. What I have not yet seen are these supposed 100% win rate, cookie cutter army lists that people always complain about.

Compared to say an MMORPG talent tree where it is simple enough to just google your class and you'll immediately get a breakdown for where every single skill point should be placed for maximum benefit. As well as a guide for what type of gear/stats you should aim for and DPS/healing/tanking rotations for a variety of situations whether it be survivability, endurance, burst, etc.

Or is net-list just a catch all term for any army list created that uses information from people on forums.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I know competative people.

And I know people who play 40k.

The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.

Staggeringly wrong; to a degree close to a loss of all credibility.

40k can be played as a competition or as a narrative. How it is played is up to the parties involved before each gaming venture. I can play a tournament one day, and that night play a totally fluffy narrative game for pure and raw fun.

Facts.

I don't play for competition or narrative. I play for fun. I am the 99%


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Madcat87 wrote:
One thing I've always wondered about this whole 'net-list' mentality. Can someone please point in the direction of where one could find these so called net-lists.

6th is still too young, but in 5th the archetype was Draigowing (Draigo+pimped out paladins).
Netlist doesn't nessarily mean over-powered. The archetypal chaos netlist was plague marines with maxed out obliterators. It wasn't particularly OP, it was just endemic.

Testify wrote:6th is still too young, but in 5th the archetype was Draigowing (Draigo+pimped out paladins).
Netlist doesn't nessarily mean over-powered. The archetypal chaos netlist was plague marines with maxed out obliterators. It wasn't particularly OP, it was just endemic.

Yes I know the names and general strategies of many armies used in 5th, I personally was a fan of Fatecrusher but what I'm after is the "this exact list has been perfectly refined for 100% victory" that the term net-list seems to imply. I've seen plenty of guides to building a list with a set list of design decisions to follow but there is still a lot of personal input.

Infact as I googled Fatecrusher one of the first results gave me this.

If you google Fatecrusher you'll find a lot of different variations of the list.

...

The rest of the list is up to personal preference, usually using Plaguebearers as troops to claim objective.

Even googling Draigowing you will be hard pressed to find 2 lists that are identical.

To me what a net-list really seems to be is any army list that is built using the input of others from the net, but is drawing on the experience of 1000s of generals fighting millions of battles really such a bad thing? People ask for painting, converting and collecting tips all the time but when someone wants gaming tips all of a sudden they're doing something wrong.

 Madcat87 wrote:

To me what a net-list really seems to be is any army list that is built using the input of others from the net, but is drawing on the experience of 1000s of generals fighting millions of battles really such a bad thing? People ask for painting, converting and collecting tips all the time but when someone wants gaming tips all of a sudden they're doing something wrong.

Well it's complex.

For example, I used to run mech guard. Was I running a leafblower netlist? Yes and no.
Yes because by some definitions of leafblower, any mechanised guard list is a netlist. This is obviously stupid. However, there was some truth - running as many vendettas as you can, plus mechvets, stank of cheese. It never appealed to me, and not just because I could never afford so many flyers. I ran things that I knew were sub-optimal - Russes instead of Manticores for one, but were still powerful because hey, they're Russes.

I also run Fateweaver Tzeentch lists. Note Fateweaver, NOT Fatecrusher. I run mono-Tzeentch lists. I know that plaguebearers are probably better than horrors (or they were when I started in 5th), but I want to run a fluffy list, so I only use Tzeentch models. However, I also want to be powerful, so I still run Fateweaver. If I was running a netlist, I'd swap my MOT Deamon Princes for MOK, and my pink horrors for plague marines.

I haven't explained myself very well, but basically when people mean "netlist", they don't mean a list that has incorporated the strategic observations of "the community", they mean a list that has little/no thought in it, and is simply copied off somewhere on the internet.

Usually anyone who has a netlist lacks knowledge of their own codexes, and outside of a few specific power builds (Draigo in 5th for example) probably won't do very well.

 Polonius wrote:
As an aside: I make this plea in everything thread along these lines, and it's rarely heeded. Tournament players, and the guys at clubs and shops that bring nasty net-lists to demolish newbs, are rarely the same guys. An actually skilled tournament player gets nothing out of spending two hours wiping the floor with a palooka. They want a challenge and they want to get better. Guys that bring that kind of game to 40k night at the FLGS are no more "competive" 40k players than the hardcore guy on the company softball team is a professional ballplayer.

On the other hand, most tournament players I know (myself included) like to get in as many practice games before an event as possible, and so will often bring their tournament lists to regular club/shop gaming nights.

I was replying to your statement that if the game is less competitive it will die........

that is because your from the UK . Imagine countries which are not small without a dense net of GW and non GW shops , no or very few table top gaming clubs . Which is more or less how most of europe looks like . tournaments and shop games is what keeps the community playing any game there. If a firm , doesnt matter which one , stops supporting tournament play and it doesnt mean prizes . it is just that few people want to play in enviroment where you cant do much againt one type of army [like necron scythwing] . It isnt fun for tournaments and it isnt fun for casuals . fewer people playing means less support from shops for tournaments , in some cases shops going bankrupt [FLGS cant go the way GW and keep shops no matter what] , sometimes it is whole communities dieing out ,because no one wants to play mirror matches with their GK or SW or necrons. Tournaments are realy a very important part of the community , if they are at cons they are free advertising . Shop tournaments bring new players and generat sells for those shops , just like leagues . Without all of that vets would soon find themselfs in a position where there is no where to play save maybe for a few big tournaments per year.

I remember what happened to warmhordes after PP showed eastern europe the finger . Ultra dynamic system that was having 100+ tournaments and many large 50-60 people local tournaments per month , droped dead within a year.

On the other hand, most tournament players I know (myself included) like to get in as many practice games before an event as possible, and so will often bring their tournament lists to regular club/shop gaming nights.

True . In eastern europe there isnt such a thing as non tournament armies or non tournament games . Everyone uses the same build for tournaments and normal games . lists are divided in to good and bad , not fluffy/not fluffy. what does that even mean unfluffy , if it is legal from a GW supported codex then it is automaticly fluffy . Specialy as most of the ultra brutal builds since 2ed were all totaly fluffy.. 3ed mecha guard ? fluffy . 2ed SW? totaly fluffy. . eldar cirucus ? perfectly fluffy . draigo wing ? same . scyth wing ? same , etc etc etc.

Somehow this is still going... can be summed up in one sentence imo.

Custom Competitive rules, already done by the major tournaments.

With custom rules, you can eliminate some of the more unbalancing randomness in the game (warlord traits, mysterious objectives/terrain, or even random charge distance).

This is so simple, yet such a hyperbolic discussion.

Yarrick's_Evil_Eye wrote:
I think it's a great move by GW in starting a war on competitive gaming.

People who are into tournaments are almost invariably horrible people to play against, with few exceptions. I believe home gaming with friends and a few beers has always been what the hobby is about.
The occasion tournament at an independent centre is a lot of fun, but the GW sponsored and/or big regional/national events just attract the absolute scum of he Earth. Those WAAC types who bring cheese lists and cry and moan if they don't win and contest absolutely every rule which bogs the game down pointlessly...Horrible.

I hope the 'war on competitive gaming' (aka as*holes) is victorious for GW.

And this is just as hyperbolic, just in the other direction

People who like to play competitively are not automatically TFG.

I think it's a great move by GW in starting a war on competitive gaming.

People who are into tournaments are almost invariably horrible people to play against, with few exceptions. I believe home gaming with friends and a few beers has always been what the hobby is about.
The occasion tournament at an independent centre is a lot of fun, but the GW sponsored and/or big regional/national events just attract the absolute scum of he Earth. Those WAAC types who bring cheese lists and cry and moan if they don't win and contest absolutely every rule which bogs the game down pointlessly...Horrible.

I hope the 'war on competitive gaming' (aka as*holes) is victorious for GW.

I've invested in excess of $2000 on 40k and WHFB and have not entered a single tournament for either. If tournaments 'die', the game will go on and a lot of people won't care.

I don't think 40k was ever made for competitive play. The company wanted to sell miniatures and made a rules set to facilitate that and has never been completely finished.

Editions come and go every time the company wants to sell something new, or re-focus gameplay on a certain line of figures. There is really no regard for 'fair' competition even though fans of the game wail constantly for something resembling faction equity. Doing this though really puts the tabletop game at odds with the fluff and creates irate fans trying to bend the game to their will.

 Madcat87 wrote:
I've scoured many 40k forums and have not once come across this magical repository of super hard, ultra-competive army lists. I've seen plenty of threads where people discuss what is good/bad about codex and I've seen people post army-lists and get comments/criticism. What I have not yet seen are these supposed 100% win rate, cookie cutter army lists that people always complain about.

There are some tournaments where people supposedly make the hardest list they can, be that in blowing away enemies or just refusing to die or budge from objectives. Ofc everyone else enters with the same objective and fights are in rounds so there will be few or no lists with a 100% win score. Many of them seem to be a list with the hardest HQ from the codex, followed by a copy-pasted number of the most points-effective troops/elites/fast/heavy choices with transports or not as it may be. The GK list with as many Psy-ammo TL-HB Razorbacks as possible and three Psy-ammo dual-TL-Autocannon dreadnoughts spring to mind...

What "net-list" refers to is a player just copying one of those tournament armies since it did good or was very common, despite him not necessarily knowing why or how that list is good.

I never remember reading where GW states that these rules were tournamemt legal...

Why can't we have fun playing a game? WAAC players and TFGs are what make it not fun to play anymore.

It's as competitive now as it was in 5th edition. It's just different.

I wish you would step back from that ledge, my friend.

Yarrick's_Evil_Eye wrote:
I think it's a great move by GW in starting a war on competitive gaming.

People who are into tournaments are almost invariably horrible people to play against, with few exceptions. I believe home gaming with friends and a few beers has always been what the hobby is about.
The occasion tournament at an independent centre is a lot of fun, but the GW sponsored and/or big regional/national events just attract the absolute scum of he Earth. Those WAAC types who bring cheese lists and cry and moan if they don't win and contest absolutely every rule which bogs the game down pointlessly...Horrible.

I hope the 'war on competitive gaming' (aka as*holes) is victorious for GW.

+1

Yarrick's_Evil_Eye wrote:
I think it's a great move by GW in starting a war on competitive gaming.

People who are into tournaments are almost invariably horrible people to play against, with few exceptions. I believe home gaming with friends and a few beers has always been what the hobby is about.
The occasion tournament at an independent centre is a lot of fun, but the GW sponsored and/or big regional/national events just attract the absolute scum of he Earth. Those WAAC types who bring cheese lists and cry and moan if they don't win and contest absolutely every rule which bogs the game down pointlessly...Horrible.

I hope the 'war on competitive gaming' (aka as*holes) is victorious for GW.

Too often actually, your point is wrong. I find it is usually the casual players coming off as 'waac' (stupid term, really) in complaining and contesting rules, simply because they don't know them. Tourney players more often than not are VERY VERY clear on their rules, because if not, it can lead to their disqualification.

I once played against a kid, must have been about 16, and he was clearly a casual. He spent a good 10 minutes adamantly asserting that a Chaplain's Liturgies of Battle allowed his squad to reroll all failed rolls to hit ALL THE TIME.

Yes, that is just one example, but my point stands; if a competitive player is questioning a rule, he's usually right and knows this, because chances are he's had it come up before, or researched it so he doesn't get screwed over in a tournament. If he is making one up or being an arse about it, he should not be lumped in with competitive player; you have stumbled across what we on earth call "A douche." He is not a representation of the tournament environment, and you should not stereotype it as such, especially when I expect you've never ACTUALLY been to a national event.

See: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/470942.page

Be the solution, not the problem,
-TheCaptain

Edit: Not to mention, GW has made no crusade against competitive gaming. They (albeit pretty passively) support it. Why would they want to get rid of a whole part of their client-base? No, the war has been 'declared' by overreactive casuals who can't stand their poorly written list getting slapped around by good players. Frankly, I don't even think competitive gamers care, either. It's a pretty one-sided hissy-fit that competitive gamers just tend to ignore. Notice there's no thread about how much competitive players hate casual gamers. Not much of a war at all.

I used to regularly play in tournaments but I won't be for probably a year as the meta balances with 3-4 new books. Still playing 40k and about to kick off a map based campaign here at home while playing other games. The money saved in gas and extra GW purchases is going toward new board games and other miniatures to paint. I guess it could be said that GW is succeeding at two things: making competition harder to organize and making being a retailer for their product harder. I'll be keeping it at home, enjoying some beverages and reconquering Vogen for the 4th(?) time now using Cities of Death, Cityfight, Battle Missions, and 6th Edition. Looking forward to the Chaos releases but that still won't get me playing tournaments again for a long time.

I think experiences with tournaments is very individual, the same as with game shops. Hard to judge a company philosophy by each of our own small windows into the game.