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.

I understand thecaptains point of view. I am by nature a competitive person I want to win every game I play. At the same time I run lists to make the games more enjoyable. At the same time it needs t be said that this is a game with dice in it for randomness. Take this weekend I played a necron player and bad rolls took what was supposed to be a close game and made it a run away

Zweichneid wrote:Waah!

So in other words, no you can't substantiate the assertion that 40k has "clearly" never been a competitive/tournament game? I thought not, but I gave you the chance to.

 English Assassin wrote:

Zweichneid wrote:Waah!

So in other words, no you can't substantiate the assertion that 40k has "clearly" never been a competitive/tournament game? I thought not, but I gave you the chance to.

In other words, by pouring over the book like a pro-bono insurance lawyer to "win" an argument of what is the "true" "correct" or "proper" way to play the game or to "prove" what the game "is" or "not is", you have already forsaken the attempt to "let's get along nicely everyone" that you can only achieve by reaching out to the guy (or girl) at the other side of the table (not some book) and acknowledging that there is no "one" or "true" game, but likely as many different (all equally legitimate) "true" ways to 40K as their are players.

Reconciliation can only come if you accept other people's style as equal and equally legitimate on an equal footing, especially if it is radically different from yours.

As long as you are trying to build hierarchies of "true" and "less true" approaches to the game, you create schisms that aggravate people who feel slighted by your derogatory dismissal of their favourite hobby.

That what 2nd Edition (or any other Edition) truly was cannot be found in any book you can quote. A book is just a book; a bit of ink and the remnants of a dead tree. It is not the people that made and make the hobby and gaming community.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 English Assassin wrote:

Zweichneid wrote:Waah!

So in other words, no you can't substantiate the assertion that 40k has "clearly" never been a competitive/tournament game? I thought not, but I gave you the chance to.

More waah!

I haven't said a thing that's derogatory about your enjoyment of wargaming, only about the irrelevance of anecdotal claims when the only empirical evidence that all Warhammer 40,000's players can discuss together is what's printed in the rulebook. You, on the other hand, seem quite comfortable with insisting that I (and everybody else on the "competitive" side of the argument) have "clearly" been having the wrong sort of fun for all these years, and then acting offended when called upon to justify your assertion.

So are you going to do that? Or are ad hominem attacks all you've got?

Gentlemen, please. Reel it in a moment for the sake of discussion. Cooler heads and all that.

English Assassin wrote:
I haven't said a thing that's derogatory about your enjoyment of wargaming, only about the irrelevance of anecdotal claims when the only empirical evidence that all Warhammer 40,000's players can discuss together is what's printed in the rulebook. You, on the other hand, seem quite comfortable with insisting that I (and everybody else on the "competitive" side of the argument) have "clearly" been having the wrong sort of fun for all these years, and then acting offended when called upon to justify your assertion.

So are you going to do that? Or are ad hominem attacks all you've got?

Where have I said that you were on the wrong sort of fun for all these years?

The entire point is that there IS (almost.. don't go hyperbole on me here) no wrong sort of fun in the hobby. It's a hobby. It's what you (or anyone) wants to do with it. There is no "better" or "worse" way. No "less" or "more" legitimate way to go about it. And this hobby does include a lot, lot more than just the rulebook. The rulebook may well be the most important element to some. But it doesn't necessarily have to come first in line, or second, or third, or even tenth for everyone).

Yes, I underlined my point with anecdotal claims from my own gaming-career. I am sorry if that confuses you.

But if you take my use of anecdotes to illustrate my point as excuse to close your eyes before the reality of many, many players (in both 40K, D&D, etc..) who feel slighted by this sort of legalistic approach to taking a rule-book as prime scripture, than your again not really trying to understand the other side.

If I am the sole and only outlier here, than there is no "polarization" in the gaming community in the first place and all is good.

If not, than your game "is" the the right and true sort of fun, just like everyone's else. Enjoy it!

And perhaps one day, you will extend the same respect and cutesy to all other players no matter how they approach the game (including those that look towards the "shared elements" of stories or miniatures, not the rulebook).

 Zweischneid wrote:

English Assassin wrote:
I haven't said a thing that's derogatory about your enjoyment of wargaming, only about the irrelevance of anecdotal claims when the only empirical evidence that all Warhammer 40,000's players can discuss together is what's printed in the rulebook. You, on the other hand, seem quite comfortable with insisting that I (and everybody else on the "competitive" side of the argument) have "clearly" been having the wrong sort of fun for all these years, and then acting offended when called upon to justify your assertion.

So are you going to do that? Or are ad hominem attacks all you've got?

Where have I said that you were on the wrong sort of fun for all these years?

The entire point is that there IS (almost.. don't go hyperbole on me here) no wrong sort of fun in the hobby. It's a hobby. It's what you (or anyone) wants to do with it. There is no "better" or "worse" way. No "less" or "more" legitimate way to go about it. And this hobby does include a lot, lot more than just the rulebook. The rulebook may well be the most important element to some. But it doesn't necessarily have to come first in line, or second, or third, or even tenth for everyone).

And yet despite this conveniently hazy and imprecise notion of what Warhammer 40,000 actually is, you can with all confidence assert that the game has "clearly" never been one for competitive or tournament play, despite the fact that I and good number of others have been playing it with a competitive mindset for more than twenty years, despite the game's designers themselves declaring it to be so, and the publisher promoting it as such. Do tell why?

No really, answer the fething question.

 English Assassin wrote:

And yet despite this conveniently hazy and imprecise notion of what Warhammer 40,000 actually is, you can with all confidence assert that the game has "clearly" never been one for competitive or tournament play, despite the fact that I and good number of others have been playing it with a competitive mindset for more than twenty years, despite the game's designers themselves declaring it to be so, and the publisher promoting it as such. Do tell why?

No really, answer the fething question.

You may find that "convenience" is the last thing that comes with my definition. Quite the opposite actually.

Also, I never (!!!!!) said that 40K wasn't made for tournaments. Get off it.

I believe what you are refering to is this post. Let's have a look at it again! I've added some colour to show you the "advanced" rhetoric at play here.

 Zweischneid wrote:

English Assassin wrote:
And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.

Exactly the same goes for Warhammer 40,000; there are wargames out there which successfully integrate narrative elements (Malifuax and Dark Age, for instance). There is even, in the form of Necromunda, a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe which does so. Warhammer 40,000 as written, however, is a game in which two players compete according to established rules to achieve mutually-exclusive victory conditions; it's a competitive game, and claiming otherwise is at best wishful thinking, and at worst deliberately misleading.

The same argument can be thrown back at "competitive" gaming. 40K clearly isn't made for tournaments. People who want to play "competitively" should just play a game that supports tourney games (e.g. Dust Warfare.. or as it were Chess).

But that isn't how it works. People out there love their D&D, but want to play it "Nobilis-style". Other people out there love their 40K, but want to use it in tourneys. It's human nature.

1. See above, marked in orange, you make a rather ludicrous claim (which I have been trying to refute for some time) that certain games have to be played in certain ways.

2. Marked in blue, I purposfully made an equally ludicrous, equally wrong, equally misguided, equally offensive "faux-argument" of the sort that you made in the post I quoted. Note that this is not an opinion of mine, but a demonstration of how this sort of misguided argumentation from anyone can incite anger and aggravation.

3. Marked in green, I immediately disowned this very phrase, precisely because it is such an idiotic statement.



Therefore, if you have indeed felt slighted by this hyperbolic rebuttal of mine (which I don't support as my own opinion), than you can perhaps feel how others feel equally slighted and aggravated by your earlier versions of the very same type of argument.

The accusation that "you are not doing it right" does sting people, as it evidently has stung you. The wargaming world would without a doubt be a far, far better place if nobody ever uses this sort of argument ever, ever, ever again.

I hope that clears it up...

English Assassin wrote:And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.

This was not intended as statement about "doing it right", except perhaps on a practical level. I'll try to convey my intentions more clearly: if you were playing a narrative- and character-driven game, then, even if you happened to have a D&D character sheet on the table in front of you, you would no longer in fact be playing D&D, because D&D as a game has no mechanics for doing so. Possibly you might be in fact simultaneously playing two games, one a highly gameist hack and slash RPG, the other a free-form arty narrativist one, almost certainly, you would be using the wrong tool for the intended job, because systems and rules shape the games we play. Moreover, what you would be playing would be sufficiently removed from "D&D" as generally understood as to be of little use as an example in discussing the game. Now just to reiterate, none of this is intended as elitist; it's a value-neutral observation on the nature of RPG systems, and one which, since we've spent enough time discussing D&D, I'd happily expand upon down in the RPG subforum.

In the light of this, consider your description of your 40k gaming. I'm in no way criticising you for not sticking to the rules, or for playing the game very differently from me, but I think your example in fact rather underlines the point that 40k is a fairly awful system with which to generate a narrative, since to do requires fudging and ignoring the rules to the extent that it is no longer the game others understand when you say "Warhammer 40,000"; something which significantly limits the usefulness of the example to a discussion of the game with others. Yes, gameplay begets emergent phenomena (narratives, metagames), but it is the rules as written which give rise to them, and which remain the primary common ground for discussion of that game.

Now, much as you may have intended "Warhammer 40,000 clearly isn't a tournament game" as a rhetorical exaggeration, you should be unsurprised that it should be taken at face value, since that very assertion has been uncritically parroted by every GW apologist since the last week of June. And obviously, 40k has always been a tournament game; it's just never been a very good one.

Which leads me neatly to a rather depressing conclusion: in fact I very strongly doubt that we should be playing the same game, because I very much doubt that any one system could adequately meet our very different expectations. Most of 40k's flaws (ignoring the ones which stem from GW's venality and incompetence, anyway) derive from the fact that the game strives to be two incompatible things - a watertight, streamlined, balanced tournament game, and a narrative-driven "cinematic" experience, and is doomed to fail badly at being either. Whilst I blame GW's recent mumblings of "less-competition, more narrative" for calling attention to it, and the casual players' and fanboys' "stop whining, go play something else if you don't like it" attitude for exacerbating it, that division has always been there, and the flaws and limitations to which it gives rise won't be corrected until GW make up their minds about what they want their game to be.

Before reading I should point out that as of yet I do not own the 6th ed rulebook due to financial difficulties that will shortly be solved, I.E. finally being offered a job after far too long being unemployed. So having only had a brief read I may be outdated on several aspects of the game, but given that the basis hasn’t changed in the last three editions than I’m going on what I know.

I’d like to start with the following quote, found on page 2 of the 5th ed rulebook.

“The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines – the choice is entirely yours.”

I bring this up first due to a number of discussions that I have witnessed both online and in person. The section I quoted is, suitably enough, titled ‘The Most Important Rule’ which I feel is often forgotten between the many rules arguments that seem to be springing up more and more lately. Between strangers or when at a tournament following the rules as written ensures that everyone has a level playing field, however when it comes to a regular group than ‘house-ruling’ rules that often cause a ‘headache’ for everyone isn’t a bad thing.

Likewise coming up with an informal group code of conduct that limits, say, the number of flyers to only two or three is up to the players in that group. It may be that this doesn’t work for everyone, but as long as the group remembers this and so acts accordingly, i.e. bring a tough list, than this shouldn’t be a problem.

Regarding the tournament, competitive and casual discussion I’d like to quote the following from page 242 of the 5th ed rulebook.

“As you and your gaming group explore the hobby, you may find yourself gravitating towards particular types of play. Some will enjoy the no-holds barred approach of tournament-style games, relishing every test of generalship and nuance of the rules. Others use their battles to tell stories, enjoying above all the chance to engage with the background.”

For the past fifth teen years I have always held to the belief that both fantasy and 40k are narrative competitive games. I have entered tournaments, campaigns and had my fair share of luck, good and bad. This belief has, as far as I’m aware, been the nature of 40k since RT, with various players leaning towards the narrative or competitive side based on their own preferences.

Human beings are by nature competitive, despite the BS that has started to permeate society that such a thing as winning is ‘bad’, to one degree or another. This isn’t a bad thing and all games have a winner and a loser, draws are nice, and personally I love it when a game ends in a draw if it’s been hard fought.

For the narrative side of the game, I should point out the vast, vast, lore, backstory and even fan fiction. I’ve rarely met anyone who doesn’t love a good story, and being able to make our own is a part of the game. Creating scenarios, special rules, or modifying existing rules to enact out this story is without a doubt well within the rule set, see The Most Important Rule.

I’d also like to mention that for what it’s worth I personally don’t feel that 40k, or fantasy, is a solid enough rule set for balance between factions. The time been codexs alone makes balance difficult when one or more editions can pass between updates. Internal balance is also a problem especially when a unit is considered too cheap for its points cost while a competitive unit is considered overcosted.

In conclusion I’d like to say this, it’s a game. Rather than get angry, spit and insult each other buy a beer, have a game of pool, read a book, or spend time with your loved ones. If you’re not happy about something than discuss it, saying he said, she said only cause’s further conflict.

P.S. I belief that online discussion should use the rulebook as written but that it should be remembered that due to this being a forum used world wise that opinions will differ between countries regarding how the game is played within areas, and even without different countries opinions can vary.

 English Assassin wrote:


Now, much as you may have intended "Warhammer 40,000 clearly isn't a tournament game" as a rhetorical exaggeration, you should be unsurprised that it should be taken at face value, since that very assertion has been uncritically parroted by every GW apologist since the last week of June. And obviously, 40k has always been a tournament game; it's just never been a very good one.

.

Well, going on a random muse, but I believe GW (and most other hobby-games) were never ever intended to be tournament games (which doesn't preclude advertising tournaments in one form or another as a good tool to sell stuff and get people playing).

Did you have a look at the Extra Credits Video?




The problem is.. a "true" tournament game would almost by definition be a bad hobby game (e.g. like the tired Chess-example) because it literally would have no meta-game.

All games where the designers want you to keep playing/collecting/etc.. will necessarily need imbalances to create a meta-game, which can cycle through different phases over and over (for 40K, see Leafblower > Long-Fang Spam > Flyerlists, etc..) where the "skill" of the players isn't actually in the mastery of the game, but in the "list-building", e.g. the constant search for the "next" imbalance that creates an edge over their opponents, at least until this new edge is in turn widely known and/or replaced by the next "edge".

On a spectrum of extreme poles, you have (A) the perfectly balanced game (chess is likely very, very close to this hypothetical pole) that you can truly master. Here, the more "skilled" player will beat the less "skilled" players. The stratagems are universal and unchanging, as the game itself is balanced, free of meta-game and free of list-building. For such a game, it would make sense (as it does for chess) to truly make "true" tournaments (as in, a test of skill, rather than a sales-show).

On the other end of the spectrum, you have (B) a perfectly imbalanced game, where skill is not a factor. The winner of any given game will be the player with "the list" that is just up there with the latest and newest "edge" in the eternal meta-game cycle of imbalances. Skill at the game is irrelevant. What matters is keeping your "List" one step ahead of the competition in the meta-game.

Now, both "extremes" are hypothetical, but I think it is safe to say that 40K leans somewhat more towards the latter than the former. It is precisely the latter, which makes the game a lucrative business (ever noticed flyers being rather good recently? A unit that most people have comparatively few units off?.. noticed tanks being somewhat nerfed? After they sold like hot-cakes in 5th?).

To the degree that the role of "skill" as a variable in determining the outcome of any given game is becoming less and less important as you move from (A) to (B), the whole idea of a tournament (in the sense of a test of skill... not a sales-show) becomes increasingly foolish.

On that account, I believe that GW has strongly moved away from "tournament" (not necessarily including "tournament-styled" sale-shows featuring a roster and a few "prize-giveaways" for the largely random people who will end up on Table #1) and every hobby-game-company that seriously wants to build their business of constantly selling new update-books and new minis MUST follow suit.

Ah, this debate again.

My attitude to wargaming is summed up by Privateer Press' Page 5.
(1) thou shalt not whine. seriously, the constant whining and moaning of the 40k community drove me from the game before.
(2) Come Heavy or dont come at all. I want you, my opponent, to bring me your best game possible. play hard, give it your all, and even if you go down fighting, you've done yourself proud. Its what i do. Anything less is an insult to my opponent.
(3) Give as good as you get. Dont clobber the smallest kid. Take on the big dogs. Learn. Evolve. Grow as a player, painter and converter. if the fight is easy, you're not trying hard enough.
(4) Win Graciously and lose valiantly. If you win. be magnanimous. If you lose, dont cry. learn. grow. evolve. come back stronger. above all, shake hands over a battle well fought
(5) dont be a douche in the name of competition. we're all here for the same reason.

I suppose you need to know me as a person too. Despite being quite competitive, im actually a decent guy as well. Its something i am proud of; i've never had an opponent leave a game mad. personally, i like pushing myself. "be all you can be" and all that. i love running. cross country, endurance races all that. kickboxing too. its not about the fghting, its the mental discipline and pushing yourself as far as you can go, and then going a bit further. Sadly though, amongst dedicated nerds, this "all you can be" attitude seems to be somewhat lacking, i find. Maybe its society, upbringing, or being the dork in the back of the class. maybe its because the guys who pushed themselves pushed them around in school. In my experience though, this attitude of being all you can be is somewhat alien to a lot of gamers. they're happy to sit back and be invisible. they dont fight (not literally though, i mean it in the sense of "pushing themselves"). I remember being that way. I hated competition as a kid. I literally thought if i never competed i could never lose, and if i never lost, people could never have a go at me. so i was happy as a kid sitting in my room, on my own playing resident evil and other PS1 games on my own. i think this social stygma is brought by a lot of people into this world of nerds. and ultimately, amongst a small but quite vocal segment of the playerbase, winning, playing to win, and playing competitively are seen in a terrible light. winning means you're doing it wrong. trying to win is breaking the game. i think there is this idea that people dont (and shouldnt) want to try to win, it should just happen.

there is also this "idea" of 40k. rather, this ideal idea of what 40k "should be". Rather than what it is. People want the game to be so much more than what it is. In ways, its hugely admirable. How often do we see player creaded races, fandexes, conversions and unique characters and background? How often are there homerules. People in a lot of ways are inspired on this "vision" of what a perfect game is. Sadly though, they're blinded so much by what "could be" that they dont see the cracks in what is. And in a lot of cases, where they do see it, there is this whining and moaning. Its negative energy. Its deadspace. A group of 40k players is known as a whine for a reason. and all this negativity goes somewhere,. someone is to blame. that guy. he's ruining the game. why, it would be so much better if he couldnt do that! Whatever "that" is, and oftentimes, i think its that guy whose only fault is winning.

Ultimately though, i will also disagree on the notion that competitive players are doing it wrong, and that 40k isnt meant to be a competitive game. Its had competitive players and competitive streaks since rogue trader, for gods sake. I started this hobby 10 years ago, and the competitive players were there then, and quite happily spoke about competitive players from way back when. the idea that they've come to this wonderful game and ruined it is laughable. 40k is a user-defined kitchen sink setting. It is whatever you want it to be. thats its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness. Its a strength because everyone can find something in it that they want. the trick is to find other people who want the same. the weakness is the lack of direction, as the game doesnt exactly know what it wants to be. So its up to you to decide. there is no right way, or wrong way, but at least respect those who are enjoying it their way.

Deadnight wrote:
Ah, this debate again.

My attitude to wargaming is summed up by Privateer Press' Page 5.
(1) thou shalt not whine. seriously, the constant whining and moaning of the 40k community drove me from the game before.
(2) Come Heavy or dont come at all. I want you, my opponent, to bring me your best game possible. play hard, give it your all, and even if you go down fighting, you've done yourself proud. Its what i do. Anything less is an insult to my opponent.
(3) Give as good as you get. Dont clobber the smallest kid. Take on the big dogs. Learn. Evolve. Grow as a player, painter and converter. if the fight is easy, you're not trying hard enough.
(4) Win Graciously and lose valiantly. If you win. be magnanimous. If you lose, dont cry. learn. grow. evolve. come back stronger. above all, shake hands over a battle well fought
(5) dont be a douche in the name of competition. we're all here for the same reason.

I suppose you need to know me as a person too. Despite being quite competitive, im actually a decent guy as well. Its something i am proud of; i've never had an opponent leave a game mad. personally, i like pushing myself. "be all you can be" and all that. i love running. cross country, endurance races all that. kickboxing too. its not about the fghting, its the mental discipline and pushing yourself as far as you can go, and then going a bit further. Sadly though, amongst dedicated nerds, this "all you can be" attitude seems to be somewhat lacking, i find. Maybe its society, upbringing, or being the dork in the back of the class. maybe its because the guys who pushed themselves pushed them around in school. In my experience though, this attitude of being all you can be is somewhat alien to a lot of gamers. they're happy to sit back and be invisible. they dont fight (not literally though, i mean it in the sense of "pushing themselves"). I remember being that way. I hated competition as a kid. I literally thought if i never competed i could never lose, and if i never lost, people could never have a go at me. so i was happy as a kid sitting in my room, on my own playing resident evil and other PS1 games on my own. i think this social stygma is brought by a lot of people into this world of nerds. and ultimately, amongst a small but quite vocal segment of the playerbase, winning, playing to win, and playing competitively are seen in a terrible light. winning means you're doing it wrong. trying to win is breaking the game. i think there is this idea that people dont (and shouldnt) want to try to win, it should just happen.

there is also this "idea" of 40k. rather, this ideal idea of what 40k "should be". Rather than what it is. People want the game to be so much more than what it is. In ways, its hugely admirable. How often do we see player creaded races, fandexes, conversions and unique characters and background? How often are there homerules. People in a lot of ways are inspired on this "vision" of what a perfect game is. Sadly though, they're blinded so much by what "could be" that they dont see the cracks in what is. And in a lot of cases, where they do see it, there is this whining and moaning. Its negative energy. Its deadspace. A group of 40k players is known as a whine for a reason. and all this negativity goes somewhere,. someone is to blame. that guy. he's ruining the game. why, it would be so much better if he couldnt do that! Whatever "that" is, and oftentimes, i think its that guy whose only fault is winning.

Ultimately though, i will also disagree on the notion that competitive players are doing it wrong, and that 40k isnt meant to be a competitive game. Its had competitive players and competitive streaks since rogue trader, for gods sake. I started this hobby 10 years ago, and the competitive players were there then, and quite happily spoke about competitive players from way back when. the idea that they've come to this wonderful game and ruined it is laughable. 40k is a user-defined kitchen sink setting. It is whatever you want it to be. thats its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness. Its a strength because everyone can find something in it that they want. the trick is to find other people who want the same. the weakness is the lack of direction, as the game doesnt exactly know what it wants to be. So its up to you to decide. there is no right way, or wrong way, but at least respect those who are enjoying it their way.

This. People assume that if you're a competitor, you're an insta-douche.

Beyond wrong, as this wise man says.

Kaldor wrote: When it leaves both players sour. Your opponent is pissed because he felt like he never had a chance. He bought his army, painted it, modeled it, brought it to the club and set it up just so you could effortlessly add another win to your tally.

He's understandably bitter about the whole affair. He wanted a close match. He wanted to feel like even if he lost, he could have won.

His attitude affects you. You don't understand why he's bitter, it confuses you and makes you angry. He should be happy he got a game at all, if he lost it's his own fault, so why is he upset? What's this guys problem?

THAT'S when fun becomes separate from winning. When you take a finely tuned list that takes advantage of anything it can, and effortlessly crush someone who has designed a list with a different focus, be it models they like, the background, or just what they have in their collection.

200% this. When my footslogging orks (that I run because it's the models I have, and it's usually fun to play) get blasted apart by 15+ missile launchers sitting inside a bastion within two or three turns I don't see how I could have enjoyed myself. Sure I could tailor a list against it, but that would require models I don't have, and I can't afford to go buy a new model every week. I don't need to win to enjoy myself, but I DO need to at least have a chance. Obviously, winning is better though.

The "perfect imbalance" argument is one with which I'm familiar, but I have to say I'm not wholly convinced of its applicability to 40k, or even necessarily to tabletop games as a whole. It does, however, oblige me (and others who frequently decry 40k's balance issues) to acknowledge that what is wanted is in fact not perfect balance (in any case probably impossible given the number of options, combinations and matchups 40k allows) but better balance (i.e. Long Fangs not costing 20% less than Devastators).

The impossibility (or indeed undesirability) of the former does not preclude the possibility (nor desirability) of the latter, and games which in their design explicitly acknowledge list-building and combo-assembling as part of competitive play (and indeed structure their background and narrative around this in such a way as to make any fluffy-competitive gap less apparent) such as Malifaux and Warmachine achieve this far better than 40k, to the extent that player skill - exploitation of and reaction to battlefield conditions - is a more relevant element in battles between experienced players of those games. That the former of those two integrates this with a more successfully-implemented narrative system says much for the advantages bestowed by thirty-odd years of improvements in game design, as well as those of creating an system and setting coherently and with well-defined objectives from the ground-up, rather than - as in 40k's case - inexpertly welding together separately-established systems and background, and piling atop them twenty-five years of emergent changes, many of them commercially- rather than design-oriented.

I'm not wholly convinced either by the relevance of the examples quoted; chess and Magic are both abstract games (one of strategy, the other of deck-building) with pasted-on themes; Warhammer 40,000, by contrast is a tactical game, which attempts explicitly to simulate events. Beyond all three being two-player games with a winner and a loser (a category broad enough to also include snakes and ladders and boxing), and all three having a "war" theme, there is very little common ground to make comparisons between them worthwhile. Indeed Magic has more in common with Dominion, despite that game being nominally themed around courtly intrigue, and chess more in common with Hey! That's My Fish, despite the latter having the ostensible theme of penguins collecting fish from an ice floe, than either does with 40k.

Magic does, however, at least operate under the same commercial pressures as 40k; Wizards need to sell cards just as GW need to sell plastic men. The Jedi curve is actually rather a nice example, and I'd agree that one can see the same principle applied by, for instance, the designers of Warmachine and other modern commercial wargames. I fear, however, that to apply it to the imbalances of 40k is doomed to be an overcomplicated (and overgenerous) explanation for what can be more simply be attributed to ineptitude, insufficiently-rigorous testing, and the accumulated quirks, exceptions and failings of a deeply old-fashioned, clunky system groaning beneath the weight of twenty-five years' worth of (often clumsily-applied) changes intended to twist it in differing (and often contradictory) directions to do a job very different from the one for which it was originally designed back in 1980 (that of a ranked unit-based fantasy game).

On cyclical imbalance, we are indeed all in agreement, though I would add that by it GW incur their players' displeasure in ways in which the makers of CCGs and MMOs do not, because the choices made redundant by edition changes represent not merely the expenditure of money but of time spent painting, and because a Space Marine player can't simply pay some real cash for "rare" Long Fangs to replace his "common" Devastators. Moreover, Long Fang spam, Guard leafblowers, Draigowing and a few other netlists (now joined by varieties of flyer spam and fortification spam) all remain very obviously superior (with varying degrees of modification) in 6th ed. over casual/fluffy lists to a far greater degree than that necessary to create an interesting metagame, and do so in ways which seem more the result of oversight than design. I wouldn't dispute that hard counters exist to all of the above, but they themselves necessitate further metagaming and diminish the impact of tabletop skill in a way that exacerbates the competitive-casual gap (and indeed by reducing the game to rock-paper-scissors, also that created incidentally by army choice and force selection between players of comparable skill and competitiveness).

Now I don't quite agree with your gloomy assessment of the level of skill (outside of list-building) required to play 40k; applying strategic choices to the tactical level - i.e. accommodating your list to the mission and terrain - still demands a measure of skill which can't be copy-pasted from the internet. That the same individuals consistently place highly in tournaments against other players using equally-optimised lists would seem to support that contention. I would agree, however, that list-building has become the dominant factor, probably quite intentionally (if perhaps indirectly so) on GW's part, since it represents the lowest common denominator of competition - i.e. anybody can copy that tournament list from the internet, whereas learning tactical skills takes time and practice - and because it maintains the desired flow of money in and plastic spacemen out every time a new release redefines the metagame.

Warhammer 40,000 could, with a less schizophrenic design approach be a better tactical game - indeed it has been a better one than it is now - it could likewise, with rather more work, be a better thematic game. It could, if Malifaux is anything to go by, be better at both things than it presently is. Successfully blending those two criteria in a mass-market game, however, requires a well-defined, coherent design vision maintained consistently over time. GW have succeeded in doing so, with both Space Hulk and Blood Bowl, and to a reasonable extent also with Epic 3rd ed. and Battlefleet Gothic; yet where are those games now? The former two, despite their Origins awards, simply couldn't generate enough money to be worthwhile, principally because they didn't lend themselves to cyclic imbalance, while the latter two failed horribly to impress GW's fanbase, not because the were poor games - indeed both were excellent, balanced tactical games - but because the thematic "chrome" to which players were accustomed had lost its customary prominence, and because they lacked any kind of meta to make playing them an ongoing, evolving experience.

Now, this rambling reply has gone on long enough already, but I shall try to reply to one last point. Your depressing prognosis on the 40k tournament circuit is probably correct. I’m not quite so convinced, however, that all others are bound to follow GW’s model. A gap now exists for a genuine (or more-genuine) tournament-level tactical game, and Warmachine, Infinity and even Kings of War are all being very deliberately promoted by their makers to fill it.

I really don't mind either mindset of fluff or competitive play. I'm more of a fluf player myself but since I'm starved for games were I live I just want to play a game. You can happily smash my armies face if I can just get a game in and have someone with a common interst to talk with. As far as you personally, you said you prefer blunt honesty so here goes. I'm accounted with you from reading your various post on other topics. You come across as rude and abrasive. Wether you mean it as a joke or not it doesn't translate well. I suspect that you mean it and only backtrack when your called on it. Specifically for shock value or to start an argument. This isn't meet as an attack just letting you know what it seems like from someone else perspective.

 wowsmash wrote:
As far as you personally, you said you prefer blunt honesty so here goes. I'm accounted with you from reading your various post on other topics. You come across as rude and abrasive. Wether you mean it as a joke or not it doesn't translate well. I suspect that you mean it and only backtrack when your called on it. Specifically for shock value or to start an argument. This isn't meet as an attack just letting you know what it seems like from someone else perspective.

Check out my sig, or the second paragraph of the OP. Who/how I am has no bearing on anything here. This is a topic about the 40k community as a whole, and it just happens to be written by someone that isn't afraid to have a strong stance on things.

English Assassin wrote:I haven't said a thing that's derogatory about your enjoyment of wargaming?

No but you are replacing all posts you quote of his with 'Wah' or whatever it is, which shows you have no respect for him or his opinion, and that's worse. For the record, I am a competitive player and agree many fluff players are overly fascist about how the rest of us should play the game, but let's (a) not lump everyone into the same barrel here just for being a fluff gamer, and (b) not disrespect one another while doing so.

TheCaptain wrote:Check out my sig, or the second paragraph of the OP. Who/how I am has no bearing on anything here.

I've noticed you saw this a lot on various threads; the fact that you 'act up' or whatever to get a reaction in itself disproves what you are saying above. It's a vicious cycle, and maybe somewhat oxymoronic, but if you are a nice guy offline, and then act up online to get a reaction and then claim you are really a nice guy, this act in itself just says that all of that is a lie, because you have to be a jerk (and kind of sad) to intentionally try and antagonise people on the internet (presumably because you feel you will never have to deal with them IRL).

There is a huge difference between being strongly opinionated and being disrespectful or rude. Note this is not in reference to anything you have said here as such, but a response to the above excuse that you have made a habit of pointing out.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:


There is a huge difference between being strongly opinionated and being disrespectful or rude. Note this is not in reference to anything you have said here as such, but a response to the above excuse that you have made a habit of pointing out.

I agree. The thing is, most of the people who find me rude are the same users who are just a little bit too "sensitive" for the internet. Every strong opinion is going to ruffle someone's feathers, mine are just stronger and ruffle-ier.

Defending yourself on dakka is exhausting. Especially when the attackers are too opinionated to see reason or take a breath and relax. This is the internet, nothing is that serious. If you do not understand this, you are either new here, or you need to lighten up your temper towards random people on the internet. If I come up to you in person and say "Your list is crap and you're ugly" then fine, take a swing at me, but on the internet, what else do you expect? To all; take what you will from my posts, you may choose to be immature and ignore them because "Captain is a jerkface" or you may be adult and look past my tone, one that you may or may not like, and take in the substance. For those that opt the former, I leave you with this.

 English Assassin wrote:
if you were playing a narrative- and character-driven game, then, even if you happened to have a D&D character sheet on the table in front of you, you would no longer in fact be playing D&D

I can't say I agree.

A player, while following all the rules of D&D, can have a narrative and character driven game.

It's kinda like playing Skyrim. I can make two characters: The first one has maxed out perks, and abuses the ability to enchant items that fortify my alchemy skill, and create potions that increase my enchanting skill, to create items that exponentially increase my abilities. I can grind out hundreds and thousands of enchanted Iron Daggers to create the most powerful character that galivants around the country side one-shotting giants and roflstomping dragons.

The second character has items that look cool, perks taken because they match the characters background, and has spent literally no time grinding out levels, instead just letting them increase naturally as I progress through the storyline.

One character is clearly only designed with power in mind, and will enable to player to stomp the crap out of anything that gets in his way. The other will provide the player with a narrative and character driven gaming experience. Both are in the same game.

Similarly to 40K, you can create an army that represents characterful selections, models you like the look of, models you have, etc. Or you can create a powerful, tweaked and maxed out list that deliberately takes advantage of any imbalances in the codexes. Both people are playing 40K, both people are equally justified in the way they choose to play. But when they play each other they're going to have a bad time. It therefore becomes reasonable for players to compromise, the narrative driven player should make an effort to make a list that still has some punch. The competitive player should tone it down a little.

Basically, the imabalances in the list make, as you observe, the list building skill extremely important, and we should all be asking for tighter control. Not perfect control or perfect balance, but better balance. As it is, for everyone to have a good time we all need to be able to indentify and rate imbalances in the codexes, and use or ignore them accordingly so we are all on a comparable level of power. If those imbalances are minimised, players would be free to choose whatever they want without having to worry about their ability to enjoy a close game.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:


There is a huge difference between being strongly opinionated and being disrespectful or rude. Note this is not in reference to anything you have said here as such, but a response to the above excuse that you have made a habit of pointing out.

I agree. The thing is, most of the people who find me rude are the same users who are just a little bit too "sensitive" for the internet. Every strong opinion is going to ruffle someone's feathers, mine are just stronger and ruffle-ier.

Defending yourself on dakka is exhausting. Especially when the attackers are too opinionated to see reason or take a breath and relax. This is the internet, nothing is that serious. If you do not understand this, you are either new here, or you need to lighten up your temper towards random people on the internet. If I come up to you in person and say "Your list is crap and you're ugly" then fine, take a swing at me, but on the internet, what else do you expect? To all; take what you will from my posts, you may choose to be immature and ignore them because "Captain is a jerkface" or you may be adult and look past my tone, one that you may or may not like, and take in the substance. For those that opt the former, I leave you with this.

I'm not offended by anything on the internet, and in fact played the troll on occasion back in the 90's when it was fresh and I was young.

I find your word choice, picture choice, signature choice, and woe is me attitude to be very rude and counterproductive to the supposedly ironic approach you state you are trying for. You aren't pulling it off, you do come off as arrogant and dismissive. You should listen to the poster you quoted, they have good advice for you.

 Kaldor wrote:

Similarly to 40K, you can create an army that represents characterful selections, models you like the look of, models you have, etc. Or you can create a powerful, tweaked and maxed out list that deliberately takes advantage of any imbalances in the codexes. Both people are playing 40K, both people are equally justified in the way they choose to play. But when they play each other they're going to have a bad time.

Eh; I kind of disagree. Well, I really disagree. I've already voiced this, but I don't think the outcome of the game should have any bearing on who is having what levels of fun. If this is the case, I think the players themselves are placing too much value on the models actions, and not on their own.

I have before tabled a kid at my FLGS. Like, absolutely wrecked him. It was 1500 points, and I wasn't even running a particularly crazy list; just mechvets and some tanks. Long story short, I had the best rolls I've ever had ever, and only lost one guardsman. To 'Gets Hot'. The kid was laughing harder than I was by the end, and we've been regular opponents since; he's getting much better by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 snooggums wrote:

I find your word choice, picture choice, signature choice, and woe is me attitude to be very rude and counterproductive to the supposedly ironic approach you state you are trying for. You aren't pulling it off, you do come off as arrogant and dismissive.

I am not trolling sir; you mistake me, I simply know better than much of Dakka, and make it my life's work to save them from their ignorance. The problem is so many resist it. I'm like the Inquisition. I'll save you from yourself, but you won't be very happy about it.

Also.

You say you read my sig, which actually has pretty plainly written a request to PM me with any lamentations to my "Online person", yet you arrogantly dismiss it.

Hmm...

 TheCaptain wrote:

You say you read my sig, which actually has pretty plainly written a request to PM me with any lamentations to my "Online person", yet you arrogantly dismiss it.

Hmm...

I didn't realize you had standing to tell others what to do, if you had worded it as a request I would have honored it.

Back on topic:
I really hate the directions that are always given to cater to someone else's needs. I figure if I am a good sport, shake hands after matches, participate in polite discourse, maintain a calm demeanor, and don't argue ridiculous rules interpretations I should be able to get along with anyone as well.

No, I don't need to 'tone down' lists or throw games because the other player doesn't play well, nor am I required to have Golden Demon quality models when my opponent doesn't remember how rapid fire weapons work, or how terrain works, or their own special rules. It always drives me crazy when someone complains that I have a basecoated model because it isn't 'doing all of the parts of the hobby' when they fail to read the rulebooks or take the time outside the game to understand how it works as a basic level either. I guess my time painting is more important in a two player game than their understanding of the rules?

 snooggums wrote:


I didn't realize you had standing to tell others what to do, if you had worded it as a request I would have honored it.

No need for defense, snoogie, I told no one what to do. There's a please there, implying it is a request, and not a demand.

"Please"
adverb
1.(used as a polite addition to requests, commands, etc.) if you would be so obliging; kindly: Please come here. will you please turn the radio off?

Source: Dictionary.com

 TheCaptain wrote:

 snooggums wrote:


I didn't realize you had standing to tell others what to do, if you had worded it as a request I would have honored it.

No need for defense, snoogie, I told no one what to do. There's a please there, implying it is a request, and not a demand.

"Please"
adverb
1.(used as a polite addition to requests, commands, etc.) if you would be so obliging; kindly: Please come here. will you please turn the radio off?

Source: Dictionary.com

Well, 'Cappie', you could lead by example...

I haven't ignored a single person's sig since starting this thread.

Example set.

Seriously though; you and everyone else needs to get over it. I'm abrasive, rude, and arrogant; whatever. Do any of you think that will change because you give me a digital lecture? Probably not. Instead, how about contributing to this awesome, insightful thread, that actually has led to some excellent discussion amongst the community.

I contributed a pretty solid thread surfacing a lot of relevant, important opinions from users. Like me or not; I think that's a pretty good move.

 TheCaptain wrote:
I don't think the outcome of the game should have any bearing on who is having what levels of fun. If this is the case, I think the players themselves are placing too much value on the models actions, and not on their own.

I have before tabled a kid at my FLGS. Like, absolutely wrecked him. It was 1500 points, and I wasn't even running a particularly crazy list; just mechvets and some tanks. Long story short, I had the best rolls I've ever had ever, and only lost one guardsman. To 'Gets Hot'. The kid was laughing harder than I was by the end, and we've been regular opponents since; he's getting much better by the way.

I can't comment on your example, as I wasn't there.

But if you are consistently fighting at a significant disadvantage because the other persons list is much more powerful than yours, then you are going to have a bad time. You're going to get frustrated and sad, and you're not going to want to play. Sure, you can still have a good time when you're getting tabled. But not when you get tabled every game, or when you can look at your opponents list and know before the game starts, how it's going to end.

I tabled an opponent a few weeks ago. The only models I lost died in an explosion when I blew up one of his vehicles in close combat. But it was a smallish game (750 points) which hinged on a few tactical errors on his part, some good luck on mine, and a poor list decision on his part. I hadn't taken a fully optimised list, he still had a solid chance, and if he'd made a few different decisions during the game it would have been much closer.

This is a very different thing to someone taking their hormagaunt horde (because they think a horde of CC beasties is very thematic, and they like the models) and getting trounced by flier spam or longfang spam without ever having a chance.

The moral of the story is that not all tablings are equal, I guess.

 snooggums wrote:
No, I don't need to 'tone down' lists or throw games because the other player doesn't play well

But if you know before hand that your opponent is taking a weak list, not because they don't understand how to build a strong list, but because they want to build a weak list for whatever reason, it is only reasonable to tone your list down.

 Kaldor wrote:

I tabled an opponent a few weeks ago. The only models I lost died in an explosion when I blew up one of his vehicles in close combat. But it was a smallish game (750 points) which hinged on a few tactical errors on his part, some good luck on mine, and a poor list decision on his part. I hadn't taken a fully optimised list, he still had a solid chance, and if he'd made a few different decisions during the game it would have been much closer.

This is a very different thing to someone taking their hormagaunt horde (because they think a horde of CC beasties is very thematic, and they like the models) and getting trounced by flier spam or longfang spam without ever having a chance.

The moral of the story is that not all tablings are equal, I guess.

But this implies that someone with a fluffy army has no chance of playing another player with an equally fluffy army. There is nothing stopping the "fluff" player from actively seeking out a player with a more 'friendly' list. Many players at my FLGS go as far as having multiple lists, usually a competitive one, a fluffy one, and one to play 'new' players.

 Kaldor wrote:

 snooggums wrote:
No, I don't need to 'tone down' lists or throw games because the other player doesn't play well

But if you know before hand that your opponent is taking a weak list, not because they don't understand how to build a strong list, but because they want to build a weak list for whatever reason, it is only reasonable to tone your list down.

Why must I always cater to the other player, why can't they bring a moderately powerful list? I don't go all out strong or anything, no max fliers/etc and I don't know their list before playing a pickup game.

 snooggums wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 snooggums wrote:
No, I don't need to 'tone down' lists or throw games because the other player doesn't play well

But if you know before hand that your opponent is taking a weak list, not because they don't understand how to build a strong list, but because they want to build a weak list for whatever reason, it is only reasonable to tone your list down.

Why must I always cater to the other player, why can't they bring a moderately powerful list? I don't go all out strong or anything, no max fliers/etc and I don't know their list before playing a pickup game.

You don't have to, but you'll have more fun when the other player is having fun. You don't need to have two whole sets of models or anything, but having a "Wreck faces" list and a "Don't table the poor kid" list written up will make it easier to ensure everyone is enjoying themself; it's a matter of consideration.

Plus a second, less powerful list lets you try out some of the less optimal codex choices guilt-free.

I can't take a deathstrike missile and a couple sentinels in a Tourney list; because they're remarkably average in incredibly valuable slots, but they sure are fun and I love the chance to use them.