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.
Zewrath wrote: The rules impacts how people enjoy things in community, but that doesn't change the fact that the community is full of people with subjective opinions on how fun the game is and on what level. Backgammon is fun for casual vs casual, pro vs pro. This applies to LoL also, from casual players dicking around in LAN parties to top ranked people, and from 40k "beer n' pretzel"-games to min/max optimizer.
You're talking about a different problem entirely, and that's a divided player base, but that doesn't mean my claim was contradicting or invalid, it's just that the divide between the player base in 40k comes from a bad player base
So if 40K's playerbase isn't really much different from any other playerbase (casual players clashing with competitive players is a dynamic you'll see in just about any gaming community), then how is the 40K player-base bad? It sounds like it's just a normal player-base.
coupled with the fact that you can spend 1000$ on a useless army, because you're clueless and then wrongfully labeled as a "fluff bunny" or "casual fluff player" instead of being listed as a noob who now properly has to invest an additional 500$ to correct his mistake.
Then it is a problem with the rules, isn't it? If 40K had good rules, there wouldn't be situations where you could spend $1000 on a useless army. That that can occur in the first place is indicative of a terrible and broken ruleset.
At best, while you could argue that 40K's playerbase is toxic, it's inarguable that the cause for that toxicity stems directly from the game's gakky rules. Fluff-bunnies have a chip on their shoulder because they don't like having their finely painted and expensive army get crushed repeatedly by a competitive list, and competitive players have a chip on their shoulder because they don't like being implicitly labeled as sociopaths because they happen to play to win. If 40K had a good ruleset it could avoid this mutual animosity by making the game more about the actual strategy and tactics in a game rather than the list-building.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/06 19:11:43
Seems "Pins of War" is down but managed to go into the internet time machine:
Great article of "Competitive 40k does not exist":
Spoiler:
Competitive Warhammer 40K Does Not Exist
March 1, 2013
Competitive Warhammer 40K is a myth. It doesn’t exist. Never has. Who wins or loses a game of Warhammer 40K is not primarily determined by any intrinsic quality of the players, such as “skill” or “talent”. As a result, you cannot truly “compete” with another player using Warhammer 40K.
Instead, Warhammer 40K is a very metagame-biased game. The outcome of any given match is disproportionately determined by the the army-lists, the codices and other Metagame-aspects. This makes 40K the popular hobby it is. But it trumps any personal quality or characteristic that you, as a player, could actually bring to a “competition” with another player.
#1 – Chess and Shuuro and the Nature of ‘Metagame’
You’re likely asking yourself now what the hell I am up to with this.
Let me thus digress a bit to Chess and Shuuro (Alessio Cavatore’s pre-Loka Chess-variant). Seeing Alessio making his Kickstarter-splash with Loka, I dusted off Shuuro and played a bit.
But first things first: Chess!
Chess is an iconic competitive game. Why? Because Chess has no Metagame (aside, arguably, from knowing your opponents’ playstyles, stratagems or, poker-style, “tells”). For 99% of all chess games – save those with the most evenly matched players – the following will be true.
In Chess, the better, more skilled player will win against a less skilled player.
That is the heart and the soul of any competition. It’s the reason a chess tournament makes sense (from a competitive, and not a commercial perspective). You match your skills in the game against your opponents. The better player wins. If you rank high, you’ll know you’re good!
It also makes competitive Chess an intimidating thing to get into. If someone has 20-years of experience on you, that’ll count for a lot (though exceptionally talented Chess-prodigies exist).
Shuuro
Alessio Cavatore’s Shuuro – It’s great fun! (but not as competitive as Chess)
Cavatore’s Shuuro adds an interesting twist to Chess that takes a lot of teeth out of Chess, making it a more casual, family-friendly game. It does this with one addition in particular: list-building.
In Shuuro, your “army” is not predetermined (1 Queen, 2 Bishops, etc..) but can be purchased from a set number of points. Thus, you could build an “elite” army with a few Queens and Bishops, a “horde” army with massed ranks of rooks, a “jumpy” army of Knights, etc.. .
The very fact that you can build lists, and that some lists might be better than other lists, both absolute or in a particular match-up (think rock-paper-scissors), means that “player skill” is no longer the king of the game. Unlike Chess, Shuuro has a metagame. The very existence of a metagame introduces an interesting possibility that does not exist in Chess.
In Shuuro, a less skilled player can beat a more skilled player by using a better list.
#2 – Player Skill vs. Metagame: Rock-Paper-Scissors
As a consequence, who wins or looses is no longer as dependent on player skill. There is, thanks to “list-building”, a second metagame dimension that is relevant for the outcome of a match.
This doesn’t mean that skill is entirely irrelevant. It clearly isn’t. Just that it’s no longer the sole thing determining who wins the game. Have a look at my lewt diagram below.
Competitive Warhammer 40K does not exist
In a match between player 1 (who has better skills) and player 2 (how is one-up in the metagame), the question of who wins will depend largely on how much either skill or metagame matters in a given game. Let’s look at the most extreme examples first.
1.For Chess: Player 1 will walk away victorious. As said, there’s no metagame to speak of in Chess, so Player 2 is screwed.
2.For Rock-Paper-Scissors: Player 2 will win. In Rock-Paper-Scissor, the better “list” (i.e. Rock, Paper or Scissor) in a match-up will win, always. “Skill” cannot change the outcome.
This is not a question of “balance”! Rock-Paper-Scissor is balanced. Arguably more so than Chess. The very logic of the game is that one list always auto-trumps the other. “Skill” is irrelevant.
Rock-Paper-Scissors is the “perfect metagame”. It is decided before the game actually begins.
Which is why a serious, “competitive” Rock-Paper-Scissors tournament would be a pointless affair, especially if you cannot “change” your choice of Rock, Paper or Scissors between rounds (as you cannot change your list in a 40K tournament). The winner of tournament where most players field paper is almost certainly a guy (or girl) that brings scissors.
In other words, it’s the “list” that matters. The player behind the “list” is irrelevant to the outcome.
#3 – So What About Warhammer 40K?
Chicago Grand Tournament 40K – Picture by Will Merydith
Of course, not ever game hits the extremes like Chess or Rock-Paper-Scissors. Most games will fall somewhere in the middle, with both factors counting for something. A Chess-Master will likely still triumph over a newb in Shuuro, even with a less impressive list.
Nevertheless, your list, your choice of Codex and the luck of hitting a tournament one step ahead of the metagame mean a lot in Warhammer 40K. Far more than in Shuuro or even other miniatures wargames on the market. Which is why list-building is such a famous past-time for people on forums, blogs and elsewhere. Which is why “famous” or “effective” lists get copied ad-infinitum.
For a “hobby-game” the dominance of the metagame over the player skill is a good thing too. It is the very reason, why playing Warhammer 40K against someone with 20-years more experience than yourself isn’t anywhere near as steep a hill to climb as it is in Chess. If you’re up-to-date on the latest lists, the rules and avoid blatant mistakes, your chances of winning are pretty even.
Once again, being one-up on the metagame is – all other things being equal – more important than painstakingly accrued skill and knowledge to win a game (or tournament) of Warhammer 40K.
#4 – Is Knowing the Metagame a Skill?
“
The term metagame is a mathematic descriptor for set interaction governing subset interaction. The term passed from military use into political parlance to describe events outside conventional bounds that, in fact, play an important role in a game’s outcome. For example, a military operation might be a game with its political ramifications being the metagame.
Splitting “skill” and “metagame” apart as I’ve done above obviously raises the question of “is knowing the Metagame itself a skill?“.
No, it’s not. At least not for Warhammer 40K.
Why?
Because (a) it is constantly evolving and driven forward (both to allow new players an easy entry and to sell more plastic) and (b) because you as a player have no influence over it.
Being “good at the metagame” of Warhammer 40K takes no skill. It only takes staying abreast with Games Workshop’s latest. If you take a break for 6 months and come back to “competitive” 40K with you 6th-month-old game, you’ll find that things have moved on. Everything you did before those 6th months will mean squat and you will start at the same point any new player starts, once she/he has gotten to the point of knowing the rules and how to avoid obvious mistakes.
Inversely, if you win a Warhammer 40K tournament, it doesn’t say anything about you or your “skills”. All it says is that you brought the right list at the right time. Nothing more.
#5 – Do You Hate Warhammer 40K Tournaments?
Warhammer 40K Metagame
No.
Warhammer 40K Tournaments are great fun.
They are a good opportunity to have some fun, meet new friends, play a few games. Obviously, tournaments also work well as a method to make people buy more toys.
Nevertheless, you’ll be having a lot more fun, if you realize that Warhammer 40K is not a competitive game, never was a competitive game and never will be a competitive game.
Competitive Warhammer 40K is an oxymoron. Competitive Warhammer 40K does not exist.
From a competitive (and not a commercial or social) logic, a Warhammer 40K tournament is really only slightly more sensible than a Rock-Paper-Scissor tournament. Approaching is as if you’re starting at the Olympics (or at a Chess tournament) will only make you look like a fool.
Z.
It all boils down to a description I liked when I came across it: 40k is an RPG for armies.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Talizvar wrote: Seems "Pins of War" is down but managed to go into the internet time machine:
Great article of "Competitive 40k does not exist":
Spoiler:
Competitive Warhammer 40K Does Not Exist
March 1, 2013
Competitive Warhammer 40K is a myth. It doesn’t exist. Never has. Who wins or loses a game of Warhammer 40K is not primarily determined by any intrinsic quality of the players, such as “skill” or “talent”. As a result, you cannot truly “compete” with another player using Warhammer 40K.
Instead, Warhammer 40K is a very metagame-biased game. The outcome of any given match is disproportionately determined by the the army-lists, the codices and other Metagame-aspects. This makes 40K the popular hobby it is. But it trumps any personal quality or characteristic that you, as a player, could actually bring to a “competition” with another player.
#1 – Chess and Shuuro and the Nature of ‘Metagame’
You’re likely asking yourself now what the hell I am up to with this.
Let me thus digress a bit to Chess and Shuuro (Alessio Cavatore’s pre-Loka Chess-variant). Seeing Alessio making his Kickstarter-splash with Loka, I dusted off Shuuro and played a bit.
But first things first: Chess!
Chess is an iconic competitive game. Why? Because Chess has no Metagame (aside, arguably, from knowing your opponents’ playstyles, stratagems or, poker-style, “tells”). For 99% of all chess games – save those with the most evenly matched players – the following will be true.
In Chess, the better, more skilled player will win against a less skilled player.
That is the heart and the soul of any competition. It’s the reason a chess tournament makes sense (from a competitive, and not a commercial perspective). You match your skills in the game against your opponents. The better player wins. If you rank high, you’ll know you’re good!
It also makes competitive Chess an intimidating thing to get into. If someone has 20-years of experience on you, that’ll count for a lot (though exceptionally talented Chess-prodigies exist).
Shuuro
Alessio Cavatore’s Shuuro – It’s great fun! (but not as competitive as Chess)
Cavatore’s Shuuro adds an interesting twist to Chess that takes a lot of teeth out of Chess, making it a more casual, family-friendly game. It does this with one addition in particular: list-building.
In Shuuro, your “army” is not predetermined (1 Queen, 2 Bishops, etc..) but can be purchased from a set number of points. Thus, you could build an “elite” army with a few Queens and Bishops, a “horde” army with massed ranks of rooks, a “jumpy” army of Knights, etc.. .
The very fact that you can build lists, and that some lists might be better than other lists, both absolute or in a particular match-up (think rock-paper-scissors), means that “player skill” is no longer the king of the game. Unlike Chess, Shuuro has a metagame. The very existence of a metagame introduces an interesting possibility that does not exist in Chess.
In Shuuro, a less skilled player can beat a more skilled player by using a better list.
#2 – Player Skill vs. Metagame: Rock-Paper-Scissors
As a consequence, who wins or looses is no longer as dependent on player skill. There is, thanks to “list-building”, a second metagame dimension that is relevant for the outcome of a match.
This doesn’t mean that skill is entirely irrelevant. It clearly isn’t. Just that it’s no longer the sole thing determining who wins the game. Have a look at my lewt diagram below.
Competitive Warhammer 40K does not exist
In a match between player 1 (who has better skills) and player 2 (how is one-up in the metagame), the question of who wins will depend largely on how much either skill or metagame matters in a given game. Let’s look at the most extreme examples first.
1.For Chess: Player 1 will walk away victorious. As said, there’s no metagame to speak of in Chess, so Player 2 is screwed.
2.For Rock-Paper-Scissors: Player 2 will win. In Rock-Paper-Scissor, the better “list” (i.e. Rock, Paper or Scissor) in a match-up will win, always. “Skill” cannot change the outcome.
This is not a question of “balance”! Rock-Paper-Scissor is balanced. Arguably more so than Chess. The very logic of the game is that one list always auto-trumps the other. “Skill” is irrelevant.
Rock-Paper-Scissors is the “perfect metagame”. It is decided before the game actually begins.
Which is why a serious, “competitive” Rock-Paper-Scissors tournament would be a pointless affair, especially if you cannot “change” your choice of Rock, Paper or Scissors between rounds (as you cannot change your list in a 40K tournament). The winner of tournament where most players field paper is almost certainly a guy (or girl) that brings scissors.
In other words, it’s the “list” that matters. The player behind the “list” is irrelevant to the outcome.
#3 – So What About Warhammer 40K?
Chicago Grand Tournament 40K – Picture by Will Merydith
Of course, not ever game hits the extremes like Chess or Rock-Paper-Scissors. Most games will fall somewhere in the middle, with both factors counting for something. A Chess-Master will likely still triumph over a newb in Shuuro, even with a less impressive list.
Nevertheless, your list, your choice of Codex and the luck of hitting a tournament one step ahead of the metagame mean a lot in Warhammer 40K. Far more than in Shuuro or even other miniatures wargames on the market. Which is why list-building is such a famous past-time for people on forums, blogs and elsewhere. Which is why “famous” or “effective” lists get copied ad-infinitum.
For a “hobby-game” the dominance of the metagame over the player skill is a good thing too. It is the very reason, why playing Warhammer 40K against someone with 20-years more experience than yourself isn’t anywhere near as steep a hill to climb as it is in Chess. If you’re up-to-date on the latest lists, the rules and avoid blatant mistakes, your chances of winning are pretty even.
Once again, being one-up on the metagame is – all other things being equal – more important than painstakingly accrued skill and knowledge to win a game (or tournament) of Warhammer 40K.
#4 – Is Knowing the Metagame a Skill?
“
The term metagame is a mathematic descriptor for set interaction governing subset interaction. The term passed from military use into political parlance to describe events outside conventional bounds that, in fact, play an important role in a game’s outcome. For example, a military operation might be a game with its political ramifications being the metagame.
Splitting “skill” and “metagame” apart as I’ve done above obviously raises the question of “is knowing the Metagame itself a skill?“.
No, it’s not. At least not for Warhammer 40K.
Why?
Because (a) it is constantly evolving and driven forward (both to allow new players an easy entry and to sell more plastic) and (b) because you as a player have no influence over it.
Being “good at the metagame” of Warhammer 40K takes no skill. It only takes staying abreast with Games Workshop’s latest. If you take a break for 6 months and come back to “competitive” 40K with you 6th-month-old game, you’ll find that things have moved on. Everything you did before those 6th months will mean squat and you will start at the same point any new player starts, once she/he has gotten to the point of knowing the rules and how to avoid obvious mistakes.
Inversely, if you win a Warhammer 40K tournament, it doesn’t say anything about you or your “skills”. All it says is that you brought the right list at the right time. Nothing more.
#5 – Do You Hate Warhammer 40K Tournaments?
Warhammer 40K Metagame
No.
Warhammer 40K Tournaments are great fun.
They are a good opportunity to have some fun, meet new friends, play a few games. Obviously, tournaments also work well as a method to make people buy more toys.
Nevertheless, you’ll be having a lot more fun, if you realize that Warhammer 40K is not a competitive game, never was a competitive game and never will be a competitive game.
Competitive Warhammer 40K is an oxymoron. Competitive Warhammer 40K does not exist.
From a competitive (and not a commercial or social) logic, a Warhammer 40K tournament is really only slightly more sensible than a Rock-Paper-Scissor tournament. Approaching is as if you’re starting at the Olympics (or at a Chess tournament) will only make you look like a fool.
Z.
It all boils down to a description I liked when I came across it: 40k is an RPG for armies.
Please, don't bring that guy back to Dakka by proxy...
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Replace "winning a game" with "playing my car stereo loudly at night" and you can see the problem more clearly.
What you're saying is that a person should be able to go out and spend several hundred dollars on an amped-up subwoofer because that's the kind of music experience they like. And when their neighbors don't, you get upset because they're complaining about it. Clearly the laws must be written wrong if I can't enjoy my music the way I like around other people. It's the rule writers who are to blame, or worse, those nosy neighbors.
How a person's behavior effects others is determines by said others, not by the person. And not by "the system" failing to save a person from themselves.
If you had a more restrictive environment, then yeah, you open yourself up to fewer of the problems that freedom creates. I don't know why this means that 40k should try hard to duplicate other games that already exist that I could already be playing if I just wanted those.
Zewrath wrote: The rules impacts how people enjoy things in community, but that doesn't change the fact that the community is full of people with subjective opinions on how fun the game is and on what level. Backgammon is fun for casual vs casual, pro vs pro. This applies to LoL also, from casual players dicking around in LAN parties to top ranked people, and from 40k "beer n' pretzel"-games to min/max optimizer.
You're talking about a different problem entirely, and that's a divided player base, but that doesn't mean my claim was contradicting or invalid, it's just that the divide between the player base in 40k comes from a bad player base
So if 40K's playerbase isn't really much different from any other playerbase (casual players clashing with competitive players is a dynamic you'll see in just about any gaming community), then how is the 40K player-base bad? It sounds like it's just a normal player-base.
coupled with the fact that you can spend 1000$ on a useless army, because you're clueless and then wrongfully labeled as a "fluff bunny" or "casual fluff player" instead of being listed as a noob who now properly has to invest an additional 500$ to correct his mistake.
Then it is a problem with the rules, isn't it? If 40K had good rules, there wouldn't be situations where you could spend $1000 on a useless army. That that can occur in the first place is indicative of a terrible and broken ruleset.
1. It really isn't.
2. Read edit.
3. This hasn't got to do with anything I posted. I said something, you said it's contradicting, it wasn't, I said why it wasn't, now you insist on proving how bad/good the rules are in 40k even though I've never refuted this.
Replace "winning a game" with "playing my car stereo loudly at night" and you can see the problem more clearly.
What you're saying is that a person should be able to go out and spend several hundred dollars on an amped-up subwoofer because that's the kind of music experience they like. And when their neighbors don't, you get upset because they're complaining about it. Clearly the laws must be written wrong if I can't enjoy my music the way I like around other people. It's the rule writers who are to blame, or worse, those nosy neighbors.
How a person's behavior effects others is determines by said others, not by the person. And not by "the system" failing to save a person from themselves.
If you had a more restrictive environment, then yeah, you open yourself up to fewer of the problems that freedom creates. I don't know why this means that 40k should try hard to duplicate other games that already exist that I could already be playing if I just wanted those.
That's a nonsensical metaphor.
Zewrath wrote: 1. It really isn't.
2. Read edit.
3. This hasn't got to do with anything I posted. I said something, you said it's contradicting, it wasn't, I said why it wasn't, now you insist on proving how bad/good the rules are in 40k even though I've never refuted this.
So you rescind your assertion that "the problem here isn't really about the rules" and agree that the problem absolutely is about the rules and that you wouldn't need to find "like-minded players" if the game's rules weren't poor.
BlaxicanX wrote: I've taken to "negotiating" with my opponents, but that's made things even worse, because saying "so what type of list would you enjoy playing against" or "what sounds fun to you" is tacitly saying "I know you're bad at this and your lists have no chance of beating mine, so tell me how to handicap myself so that you can have a prayer of winning", which is kind of like rubbing salt in the wound. Most people that I ask that to respond with "play whatever list you'd like" and then the aforementioned incidences with turn 2 conceding and the uncomfortable silence occur.
The rest of the post was fine, but this part I would like to respond to.
It's not really about saying "you are bad and I want to handicap myself". It's an issue, not just with 40k but with most games, that not every unit is competitive enough.
I personally own 15.000 points of Necrons and if I want to play competitive, I don't even look at 12.000 of those units.
So if I ask my opponent "what kind of game he wants" I actually mean "Can I build a list out of my 15.000 points or do I limit myself to the 3.000 points of competitive models?"
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it as "handicapping myself" when I bring Lychguard instead of Wraiths; I see it as a different kind of list that is designed for opponents who are limited in the options they can pick from.
And with a game as expensive as 40k, you will always have such things!
My Ork-friend has 2000 points in total. It's only logical that he will never field a list that's as optimized as my 15.000
ramman2004 wrote: So to get this right. In this game I want to purchase and spend time painting bad models that don't win games? IE Vespids. Cause people don't want to update their armies. Seems like a backwards way of playing a game. We'll maybe this isn't the game for me then. I'm not going to spend money on models that suck in the game. As far as being a WAAC. I don't cheat on purpose. I may get some rules wrong being how I'm only 6 months into the game. I do play 3 riptides but I do like the model and was going to order the two FW riptides.
^^^
This attitude is exactly what causes competitive player hate.
ramman2004 wrote: It's cool. I think I will just go back to playing Magic or find another war game. I can't even post a list without some rules. Thanks everyone for the help. This just isn't the game for me. I can't play or put money and time into not being able to win.
How would you feel if you invite me over for some casual multiplayer with two others and I bring my Stax-deck?
As a Magic-player you should surely understand the difference between casual play and competitive.
You don't bring a Squirrel-deck to a tournament and you don't bring Stax to a casual game.
That's why you always make sure you know what kind of game is intended to be played that day.
I have a Norin, Azami, Mimeoplasm and Pillowfort-deck for EDH. Depending on the level my opponent wants to play, I bring a different deck.
For Legacy I have Solidarity, Goblins, Stax, Burn and Infect-stompy.. All of them on a different level, depending on what me and my opponent plan to do.
BlaxicanX wrote: So you rescind your assertion that "the problem here isn't really about the rules" and agree that the problem absolutely is about the rules and that you wouldn't need to find "like-minded players" if the game's rules weren't poor.
Well, we're on the same page then.
Your so called "OP" list would be a fun lists in the meta around 20 minutes where I live. It wouldn't be in my own local meta. They don't like those lists and you do. So you would have to go the other meta group for like-minded individuals to get your fun, as I said... This isn't contradicting in any way.
BlaxicanX wrote: So you rescind your assertion that "the problem here isn't really about the rules" and agree that the problem absolutely is about the rules and that you wouldn't need to find "like-minded players" if the game's rules weren't poor.
Well, we're on the same page then.
Awesome.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Your so called "OP" list would be a fun lists in the meta around 20 minutes where I live. It wouldn't be in my own local meta. They don't like those lists and you do. So you would have to go the other meta group for like-minded individuals to get your fun, as I said... This isn't contradicting in any way.
If the rules didn't suck, there'd be no such thing as a "different meta".
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Does the rules and balance suck in Starcraft? MTG? LoL? There are many different metas in all of those.. Oh wait, those aren't tabletop games, so those apparently doesn't count.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/06 19:37:27
Zewrath wrote: Does the rules and balance suck in Starcraft? MTG? LoL? There are many different metas in all of those.. Oh wait, those aren't tabletop games, so those apparently doesn't count.
In a discussion about wargames, yeah, its generally seen as a good idea to compare wargames to other wargames.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Zewrath wrote: Does the rules and balance suck in Starcraft? MTG? LoL? There are many different metas in all of those.. Oh wait, those aren't tabletop games, so those apparently doesn't count.
In a discussion about wargames, yeah, its generally seen as a good idea to compare wargames to other wargames.
WoW had a bug, where a damage over time effect spread out of the scripted area and caused entire servers to be decimated and the panic and confusion caused was later used in a study about spreading of pandemic diseases and how human psychology works in those situations.
Just because it was a video game didn't mean the logic, or the phenomenon wasn't applicable to real life situation. Just because you're dead set on it 'has-to-be!' a miniature game doesn't mean much logic can't be applied on proper terms and situations.
Also, are you seriously suggesting that Warmahorde/infinity/what ever doesn't have any form of meta?
Zewrath wrote: Does the rules and balance suck in Starcraft? MTG? LoL? There are many different metas in all of those.. Oh wait, those aren't tabletop games, so those apparently doesn't count.
In a discussion about wargames, yeah, its generally seen as a good idea to compare wargames to other wargames.
Also, are you seriously suggesting that Warmahorde/infinity/what ever doesn't have any form of meta?
Not to the same extent that 40k does. There's no broken base pitting the "competitive gamers" against the "fluff gamers" with the lines drawn in the sand. Threads of this nature simply do not exist on WMH's forums.
40k's sub par rules have created this rift in the player base.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Kangodo wrote: The rest of the post was fine, but this part I would like to respond to. It's not really about saying "you are bad and I want to handicap myself". It's an issue, not just with 40k but with most games, that not every unit is competitive enough. I personally own 15.000 points of Necrons and if I want to play competitive, I don't even look at 12.000 of those units.
Don't get me wrong, that's not how I personally feel about these other players- the way I look at it, it just comes down to the units I like happening to be a lot better in the current meta.
But in my experience, most people don't interpret it that way, mostly because they're projecting. Most people are intrinsically good, and feel guilty about dictating other people's fun. So when you've beaten someone multiple times and you offer to make the next fight more fun/fair, I think it kind of hits a nerve in a lot of people that's like "man, he feels the need to limit himself because our lists are so uneven. Damn."
idk.
Zewrath wrote: Your so called "OP" list would be a fun lists in the meta around 20 minutes where I live. It wouldn't be in my own local meta. They don't like those lists and you do. So you would have to go the other meta group for like-minded individuals to get your fun, as I said... This isn't contradicting in any way.
If the game's rules were better, my list would be just as powerful in your meta as it would be in any other- thus the point. Asserting that the problem isn't the rules so much as it's the player-base is incorrect because the problems with the player-base is symptomatic of the problem with the rules.
Your comparison of 40K to games like LoL and Starcraft is a false one for a couple of reasons.
1. Players in those games aren't spending hundreds to thousands of dollars for the army that they're using- thus there isn't nearly as much of a sting from repeatedly losing. The 50 bucks or whatever that it costs for the game doesn't require nearly as much of a financial and emotional investment as jumping into 40K does.
2. SC and LoL have a globally-connected community that is automatically regulated via the game's ELO/ranking systems. That means that you will always be able to find players that are around your level, and can choose to surround yourself with equally skilled players. By comparison, with 40K unless you're willing to drive a long time, the meta you're with is the one you're stuck with. I'm in that situation (though I play online). I'm kind of a big fish in a small pond.
3. SC and LoL have metas, but what separates metas in those games is the skill of the individual player. The Protoss as an army functions exactly the same and with the same level of effectiveness in Masters as it does in bronze league, the only thing that's different is the skill between the two players at using it. Likewise, Blizzard has gone through pain-staking effort to balance all three of the factions against one another. So if you're playing Zerg and you get crushed by a Terran, it's not because Terran just happens to be the rock to your Zerg scissors, it's because he outplayed you. In 40K, simply playing as a certain faction can give you an inherent disadvantage against an opponent- and taking the sub-optimal units in that faction will make the gap even larger. So there are many instances in 40K where the game basically becomes robotic and plays itself, as your opponent's list is just so mathematically superior to yours that there's nothing you can really do to win.
Those three things combined make 40K very different from most competitive strategy video games. Unlike SC and LoL, 40K requires a massive amount of financial, emotional and time investment into your army, and unlike those games your army might just be inherently weaker than other peoples' despite all that investment, and if it is weaker there's not a whole lot you can do because you're more or less locked in to the meta around you.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/10/06 20:03:24
MTG? Yes. Gods, yes. Even WotC admitted this when they started rolling out with their lists of restrictions, cycling through what deck-series can and can not be played. WotC figured out that they'd created a monster with the way some of their cards were written, and has taken steps to addressing this problem.
LoL's meta is fairly universal. It has to be, it's a MMOG. You don't play it with locals, you play it with people from around the world. This has a way of making every meta the same meta. Once a playstyle with a give character is proven to be most-effective, that build/playstyle becomes the expected norm. This, in essence, is "netlisting".
The same is true in a number of MMORPGs that permit "skill building". That is, each class has access to a range of skills, but is given only so many points to spend in them. Certain builds are demonstrated to be most-effective at certain tasks (Raid DPS, PVE AOE DPS, Raid Healer, PVP Healer, etc). Even in PUGs, you're expected to be aware of these most-efficient builds, and to be following them, rather than spending your points however you like. If you don't, and you PUG a lot, you get the reputation of being a bad tank/healer/dps/whatever and find your PUG options getting rather limited.
Starcraft is the same way. There are ways to play each army, and each style is generally whatever Korea is demonstrating as winning their tournaments. Outside of that? What the home user is playing on a LAN or with a guy on Battle-Net doesn't really matter... they're basically just throwing models onto the table. The "meta" of Starcraft is, again, basically netlisting. It's following a demonstrated, effective playstyle that permits most-efficient use of resources and units to win.
Do SC's rules suck? No, but then Blizzard has had fifteen years to perfect the game. They've made some fairly significant changes to the "rules" of the game (that is, the mechanics by which units operate, by which units/tech builds, the statlines of units, etc.)... because in the early days, some of their rules *did* suck! Of course, being that SC can be played over a LAN, that doesn't prevent someone from hexediting their unit profiles to give their units some pretty crazy advantages (like Siege Tanks with map-wide range), but the core game is now pretty much balanced, and where wins/losses depend more on tactics and player skill than choosing the "right army".
The "meta" of Starcraft is whatever is being done in South Korea. That's the tourney scene that determines what "netlists" are seen on the maps of everyone else in the world. The variances in the playstyles for each faction is less a "this is more effective than this" and more a "this is one very good way to play this faction". What random scrubs are doing in their local LAN parties doesn't really enter into the discussion.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
ramman2004 wrote: Deleted. i can't even post a list LoL screw this game!!!
Wow. You tend to go off the handle don't you. If you're like that in real life, what positives do you bring to a game such that other human beings would find it fun to play against you?
There are more competitive systems - warmachine having been mentioned. Strangely and EPIC and BFG are much more balanced as well, and competitive players will play them enjoyably.
40K can be very compeitive. It depends on the local metagame and if you're a tourney player. The secret is playing against opponents who want to do that, and not scenario based gamers who are trying to re-enact something a from a fluff book, their head, or a movie/real life event.
Now if you really wanted to broaden your horizons you would do both, play competitive and scenerio based.*
*Not the stupid GW victory conditions, real scenarios. For example: -Play a bog standard Marine company (by codex) vs. a bog standard similar Tau force. -Play a lopsided game: Your Tau are a pincer on the planet Kursk, trying to drive through the fortified lines of IG. They are in trenches, infantry only with lots of artillery. You are mechanized and have to get through. Oh and they outnumber you 2.5 to one. -Last Stand of General Farsight. some battered, mixed tau forces and a few bunkers, against a "literal" never ending sea of Orks. How glorious can you make your end?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/06 20:38:03
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Zewrath wrote: Your so called "OP" list would be a fun lists in the meta around 20 minutes where I live. It wouldn't be in my own local meta. They don't like those lists and you do. So you would have to go the other meta group for like-minded individuals to get your fun, as I said... This isn't contradicting in any way.
If the game's rules were better, my list would be just as powerful in your meta as it would be in any other- thus the point. Asserting that the problem isn't the rules so much as it's the player-base is incorrect because the problems with the player-base is symptomatic of the problem with the rules.
Your comparison of 40K to games like LoL and Starcraft is a false one for a couple of reasons.
1. Players in those games aren't spending hundreds to thousands of dollars for the army that they're using- thus there isn't nearly as much of a sting from repeatedly losing. The 50 bucks or whatever that it costs for the game doesn't require nearly as much of a financial and emotional investment as jumping into 40K does.
2. SC and LoL have a globally-connected community that is automatically regulated via the game's ELO/ranking systems. That means that you will always be able to find players that are around your level, and can choose to surround yourself with equally skilled players. By comparison, with 40K unless you're willing to drive a long time, the meta you're with is the one you're stuck with. I'm in that situation (though I play online). I'm kind of a big fish in a small pond.
3. SC and LoL have metas, but what separates metas in those games is the skill of the individual player. The Protoss as an army functions exactly the same and with the same level of effectiveness in Masters as it does in bronze league, the only thing that's different is the skill between the two players at using it. Likewise, Blizzard has gone through pain-staking effort to balance all three of the factions against one another. So if you're playing Zerg and you get crushed by a Terran, it's not because Terran just happens to be the rock to your Zerg scissors, it's because he outplayed you. In 40K, simply playing as a certain faction can give you an inherent disadvantage against an opponent- and taking the sub-optimal units in that faction will make the gap even larger. So there are many instances in 40K where the game basically becomes robotic and plays itself, as your opponent's list is just so mathematically superior to yours that there's nothing you can really do to win.
Those three things combined make 40K very different from most competitive strategy video games. Unlike SC and LoL, 40K requires a massive amount of financial, emotional and time investment into your army, and unlike those games your army might just be inherently weaker than other peoples' despite all that investment, and if it is weaker there's not a whole lot you can do because you're more or less locked in to the meta around you.
1. What you spend is irrelevant to how I'm not contradicting myself.
2. Choosing players online or not, is still not relevant to how I'm contradicting myself, nor is it relevant on how players play vs each other, as you can join forums to setup matches and even go to tournaments, so the fact that finding people requires more effort invalidates nothing about the point.
3. You clearly have no idea on how either game works or you don't understand what meta is. Starcraft has many biased matchups, there's hundreds of build orders/setups/early game to mid transition, all of which have huge variables based on maps, match ups and which side you are on. Those are all things you have to familiarize yourself with, before you can think outside the box in competitive play in Starcraft. LoL has an ever changing meta due to the fact that in-game items, gold flow and champion abilities changes and even though you can be skilled to a near useless champion, you'll have an inferior statistic if compared to a more powerfull champion with better items. Then there are combos and synergies and team setups. Incidentally, Terran actually rocks Zerg's scissors in most matchups.
Still, now you're talking about how much money you're putting into 40k and how you're stuck with local meta and what now, none of that gak is relevant to how the game is fun with like-minded individuals.
Do you agree with the premise that the only reason "finding like-minded players" is necessary for the game's enjoyment in the first place is due to 40K's poor rules?
It's a yes or no question.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/10/06 20:39:04
We might call for an agreement first. I know some people don't have enough models to play competitively, and some armies like Daemons and Necron are simply broken.
BlaxicanX wrote: Don't get me wrong, that's not how I personally feel about these other players- the way I look at it, it just comes down to the units I like happening to be a lot better in the current meta.
But in my experience, most people don't interpret it that way, mostly because they're projecting. Most people are intrinsically good, and feel guilty about dictating other people's fun. So when you've beaten someone multiple times and you offer to make the next fight more fun/fair, I think it kind of hits a nerve in a lot of people that's like "man, he feels the need to limit himself because our lists are so uneven. Damn."
idk.
Oh yes, it surely depends on the player you have.
The ones I usually play against understands that, since I have 12 times as much models, I can have much more variation and I can optimize to a level that they will never reach.
And it depends on the general attitude: Do you play a game to win or to field your models?
I paid for, assembled and painted a gigantic amount of models that I just cannot field against a competitive list.
Those models include around 30 Lychguard, 30 Scarabs, 3 Spyders, 20 Flayed Ones, two Monoliths, ca. 40 Immortals and 99 Necron Warriors (yes, 99.. I hate it).
I also own every SC except Anrakyr, 7 Crypteks and 8 Lords/Overlords. All of them useless if I have to be 'competitive'.
It's even worse with my Blood Angels, though I don't have as much, with my 10 Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinor and my 30 DC with Lemartes.
To me it's not about 'limiting' myself, but about playing the models I paid a lot for and that I love.
BlaxicanX wrote: Do you agree with the premise that the only reason "finding like-minded players" is necessary for the game's enjoyment in the first place is due to 40K's poor rules?
It's a yes or no question.
No. The poor rules is the cause of a dwindling player base (or rather, a big part of it).
The reason you need like-minded players is due to lack of proper balance between the armies and internal balance as well. Where they better, then I would gladly play with 10 times more rules with "suffer a randomized wound between 30 models" and the like.
Since you don't know the difference between meta and skill, I'm also going to assume that you think good rules = balance. Let me answer that for you; no, no it doesn't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/06 21:03:40
The reason you need like-minded players is due to lack of proper balance between the armies and internal balance as well. Where they better, then I would gladly play with 10 times more rules with "suffer a randomized wound between 30
Balance stems from the rules. Codices are rules.
Therefore needing like minded players due to balance is a result of the rules.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
The reason you need like-minded players is due to lack of proper balance between the armies and internal balance as well. Where they better, then I would gladly play with 10 times more rules with "suffer a randomized wound between 30
Balance stems from the rules. Codices are rules.
Therefore needing like minded players due to balance is a result of the rules.
Only to an extent, but good rules =/= good balance. Even though it isn't the case, if Warmahorde made 2 armies with massive advantages and special rules and as such you'd mostly see people play 2 said armies in tournaments while the others would be shelved. This wouldn't be a case of warmahordes having bad rules and the other armies are solid, but it would be a case of a game with good rules and poor balance.
Just skimmed through the topic. Too much mindless arguing and hatred for me.
It just appears that I am a very lucky person. I consider myself a competitive person that always tries to win (but not "no matter what" obviously) AND I have found such a group of people that most of them are into it. Facing Flying Tyranids allied with Imperial Knights, Necrons wth Belakor (back in 6th), Tau with Bunker filled with Broadsides with Buffmander and 2 additional 3-man Crisis teams armed with Missile Pods, Target Lock, Marker drones and a shooty Commander each (Tau allied with Tau) etc. is a "normal" thing in this group. I try never to complain and accept the challenge.
But... but... but you play Eldar so it doesn't count, in:
3.....
2.....
1.....
Go
"I'm rather intrigued to discover that my opponent, who looks like a perfectly civilised person, is in fact mathematically capable"
BlaxicanX wrote: Do you agree with the premise that the only reason "finding like-minded players" is necessary for the game's enjoyment in the first place is due to 40K's poor rules?
It's a yes or no question.
No. The poor rules is the cause of a dwindling player base (or rather, a big part of it).
Well, if the OP wasn't just trolling everyone, it's entirely possible that the peeps in this thread caused a player to quit playing the game...
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
