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.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
It's that GW's games are clearly not designed for competitive play and never have been. They are basically cooperative role playing games in which you "forge narratives". If you want to Play Like You've Got a Pair, there's a game for you. 40k or Fantasy is not it. Playing to "win" in a game that is explicitly designed to not be about winning is being a dick. And we are tired of it.

Xenocidal Maniac, I can only assume you haven't played fantasy long - in 7th edition GW itself sponsored "Ard Boyz" tournaments where you were supposed to bring the strongest list you could and (of course) play to win.

I'm a casual player, I play for fun (and although I like going to events, I am never set on winning them or building with that in mind over theme / etc). But comments like yours are what I would call "revisionist history" regarding GW and their games... the Grand Tournament circuit, Ard Boyz, etc - all of these are from GW, their own design, their own system.

This idea that playing to win is being a jerk and always has been is just ridiculous! I am all for people wanting to enjoy AoS, but don't misrepresent things in your haste to support it, as you are just simply wrong in statements like this.

*Edited to be a bit less agrumentative (my apologies)

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:

No, I get you - and I'm having a hard time articulating the difference between what you are describing and what actually has been going on in the GW-gaming community for the past 10 years. There is a difference and I am working to put my finger on it. You can play to win and be competitive without being a jerk... but what has been happening is that GW's games, which are so clearly designed not to be played competitively, is that they have been hijacked by people who don't actually want to play competitively - they want to win. And it's not about having a fair game. It's about them winning, and they demand legislation that would prevent anyone from ever possibly getting one over on them and bruising their fragile egos. And they've mangled it into the toxic clusterufck we see today in which I can't even get a game of AoS locally because everyone is so terrified that their opponent is going to try to get one over on them without a points system. It's ridiculous. Is this what it's become?

Absolute nonsense. The game didn't make these people the way they are. If it was WHFB, 40k Wm/H, X-Wing, Malifaux, Rogue Trader, Risk, Twilight Imperium, Monopoly, Sorry or Chutes and Ladders, these people would still be jerk-offs. Blaming that on WHFB is absolute nonsense. It doesn't speak to the game, it speaks to the people in your playing circle/store group/whatever you want to call it.

People were jerks before WHFB; they will be jerks through AoS and beyond. If anything, AoS has made it much easier to be a jerk within the bounds of the game simply due to its loose nature.

Troll post is troll.

4 posts.

Previous posts had better English.

Calling a hobby he enjoyed for years toy soldiers.

Don't feed the troll. Now que the troll doing something they can't resist doing: defending their post and denying its a troll. Even as I say this they cannot resist. Its like cocaine.

It is just a game, but then the point of a game is largely to win. You are putting yourself agains another entity, whether it be another player or the game itself.

By its definition (via Wikipedia)
a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

Competitive doesn't mean that you have to be a tool, it just means that the game is pitting two people against each other. People who identify as WAAC or TFG are just as prone to being scrubs- forcing you to neuter your list of they won't play. It's about trying to obtain unfair advantages over the other person. Without a way to balance the game, AOS creates tons of opportunity for abuse, which will mainly exist in the form of non-blatant shifting of chances to win. It just ends up devaluing the experience further- if there is no way to tell if you are having a fair game, then it goes right back into that "cops and robbers" type of game that children play. Which is great when it doesn't cost money to play, but when you're dropping $50 for a five-pack of Sigmarites, it should probably be more than "do whatever you want!"

EDIT: I also very much agree with Mellisia, RITides, and streamdragon's posts.

 lcmiracle wrote:
@Xenocidal Maniac
So if "Forging the Narrative" is so important to you, what part of the 8e WHFB you can't forge your narrative in?

You can play severally under your opponent's army point value; you are still limited to using named characters to one per army. And how does one forge the narrative when your opponent does not co-operate? So you are clearly playing with friends, in a friendly game, for a friendly narrative. Nothing stopped you from "forging the narrative" -- it's called a handicap or homebrew and the rules even made clear that you can do so.

WHFB supported your narrative forging, and while AoS has many good changes, it doesn't have to forgo game balance for everyone to accommodate just one crowd. It's your self interest to promote this single type of play, and thus, AoS as it stands.

"Toxic" is just a term you use for players who don't play exactly the way you play. I can't even fathom how you can call anyone else toxic while you are one trying to propagate you self interest onto everyone.

Thank you for the nice post. I appreciate you dropping the belligerence.

Here is where my problem is - the well has been poisoned by the toxic types so thoroughly - the bullies, hiding behind "balanced rules" and "point systems" have been allowed to rampage through the community so freely for the past 10 years or so that now everyone is paranoid that their next opponent is a bully that they need to protect themselves from. You point out that I've had the option of forging narratives under 8th ed. True, on paper. In actual practice, it is to the point where I literally can only find one or two people local to me to do this with. Everyone else is buried so deeply under this paranoid bully paradigm that they can't seem to understand the concept that I'm not trying to spring some devious trap on them and beat their pants off when I suggest a "friendly" match. It is beyond ridiculous.

It is clear to me that GW is tired of policing bad behavior. They have realized that creating "tight" rule systems doesn't do much to rein in bad behavior; it simply gives churlish types a veneer of legitimacy. So now they're removing the cloak and exposing the jerks, and hoping they leave. It's a great idea.

You say also that I have the option of homebrew rules - well, now the tables are turned. If you want competitive play, now you can come up with homebrew rules for it. But "competitive" and "balanced" is no longer the default. I've been doing "homebrew" for the better part of a decade. Now it's your turn. What I suspect is that the handful of bullies ruining this hobby will find a way to "homebrew" their way back in, and this exercise will all be futile in any case....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ho boy. I'm under attack here. Now I'm "defending" my position against several people with thousands of posts under their belts... you're clearly more invested in this than I am, which is why your paradigm is the one we all play under...

RiTides, in fact I did play 7th ed. You should stop with that "assuming" business. I enjoyed 7th a great deal. I never participated in an Ard Boyz (they had them for 40k too, by the way) because I didn't want to play million point games or whatever they were. But I did enter and win numerous local Fantasy and 40k tournaments during that era.

I bet you assumed that I was just another loser who "didn't know how to play", too. Yeah, sorry, I've been in this hobby for 25 years now, so you will be hard pressed to find that any of your "assumptions" that make your opinion "superior" to mine are true.

You claim that I am revising history, but you're wrong. Not sure if you know this, but the GTs used to be weighted just as much if not more on painting and sportsmanship. They actually were just excuses for a bunch of gamers to get together and play, and they were great. But then the jerks came and ruined the whole thing and started gaming the system. When GW saw what a demon they unleashed, they stopped them. So, you're actually proving my point by bringing up GW's history with "competitive" events.

Steamdragon - my position, which I highlight above, is that the lack of rules actually makes it harder for the jerks because now they don't have the "legitimacy" of a rules and points system to hide behind.

But, listen guys, I don't have time to endlessly explain and defend my position against people with 15,000, 30,000+ posts. It's clear that this is Serious Business to you and you have your minds made up. And I'm just a man in any case.

I'm out for now. I'm working on an essay that explains my position so I don't have to keep doing these one off posts. Not sure if I care enough to finish it, but if I do, I'll post it. Be on the lookout.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:

Spoiler:

 lcmiracle wrote:
@Xenocidal Maniac
So if "Forging the Narrative" is so important to you, what part of the 8e WHFB you can't forge your narrative in?

You can play severally under your opponent's army point value; you are still limited to using named characters to one per army. And how does one forge the narrative when your opponent does not co-operate? So you are clearly playing with friends, in a friendly game, for a friendly narrative. Nothing stopped you from "forging the narrative" -- it's called a handicap or homebrew and the rules even made clear that you can do so.

WHFB supported your narrative forging, and while AoS has many good changes, it doesn't have to forgo game balance for everyone to accommodate just one crowd. It's your self interest to promote this single type of play, and thus, AoS as it stands.

"Toxic" is just a term you use for players who don't play exactly the way you play. I can't even fathom how you can call anyone else toxic while you are one trying to propagate you self interest onto everyone.

Thank you for the nice post. I appreciate you dropping the belligerence.

Here is where my problem is - the well has been poisoned by the toxic types so thoroughly - the bullies, hiding behind "balanced rules" and "point systems" have been allowed to rampage through the community so freely for the past 10 years or so that now everyone is paranoid that their next opponent is a bully that they need to protect themselves from. You point out that I've had the option of forging narratives under 8th ed. True, on paper. In actual practice, it is to the point where I literally can only find one or two people local to me to do this with. Everyone else is buried so deeply under this paranoid bully paradigm that they can't seem to understand the concept that I'm not trying to spring some devious trap on them and beat their pants off when I suggest a "friendly" match. It is beyond ridiculous.

It is clear to me that GW is tired of policing bad behavior. They have realized that creating "tight" rule systems doesn't do much to rein in bad behavior; it simply gives churlish types a veneer of legitimacy. So now they're removing the cloak and exposing the jerks, and hoping they leave. It's a great idea.

You say also that I have the option of homebrew rules - well, now the tables are turned. If you want competitive play, now you can come up with homebrew rules for it. But "competitive" and "balanced" is no longer the default. I've been doing "homebrew" for the better part of a decade. Now it's your turn. What I suspect is that the handful of bullies ruining this hobby will find a way to "homebrew" their way back in, and this exercise will all be futile in any case....

People have "thousands of posts" because they've been here for a while...I'm not sure what connection you're trying to make except that a lot of those posts have been about this topic?

Also, please stop with the martyr comments, they do nothing to strengthen your argument. All anyone is doing is explaining their opinions on this matter, they're not trying to silence you or control the paradigm of the game.

Please, we mustn't let the wargaming community devolve in to 'hardcore' vs 'casuals' like in the video gaming community. For the most part, everyone who plays a wargame is playing to win, as competitiveness is in the very nature of wargaming, you are trying to get your army to beat your opponents army. it's just some people are more focused on winning than others which is fine up until the point that they forget that it's just a game with little plastic army men not a life or death situation.

As for AoS not being 'competitive', give it some time guys. I'm sure that as the game evolves and expands, so will the scope for tactical and competitive game play. It's still early days.

Maniac - If you've played 7th edition, if you're aware of Ard Boyz, then you should realize that a lot of your statements are false. GW has often run events specifically for people to play to win - hence why I reacted to your statement about someone playing to win in a GW game being a jerk.

It's great that you've won events - I never called you a loser, or anything like that... you're coming into this with a LOT of baggage and displacing it onto a lot of people. The problem with terms like what are being carelessly thrown around in this thread like "WAAC" "TFG" and "Toxic" is that they're just completely arbitrary, and one person's "WAAC" player is another player just playing to win an event.

No worries if you don't have time / interest / etc to explain your position... but as I pointed out above, if you're aware of Ard Boyz and other things like the Grand Tournament circuit that GW ran for a long time, then you know that a lot of things you are saying about GW's history are either oversimplifications or just wrong.

I do apologize for my snark above - it's just that I've seen a few people bandwagoning on comments like yours, and terminology like what is being used in this thread, and I'm getting tired of it. But I shouldn't have used the language I did in return... I'm happy for people to enjoy AoS, just don't trash fantasy and call fantasy players "toxic" to do it!

I've played fantasy games where I only killed 2 enemy models. I've intentionally run themed armies for each fantasy army that I built that gave myself many list building restrictions. I've felt bullied by players who were perhaps going too far before, but I've also felt that way and later realized another player was just much better. So, I think just a bit more thought is needed before slamming everything associated with fantasy... you're going to run into a lot of the same issues with AoS if you assume problems were only due to the fantasy ruleset, because you won't be recognizing the other factors that contribute to a bad wargaming experience (such as when someone is, legitimately, a jerk... rather than just a guy playing a game whose object is to, you know, win ).

Yikes, pretty emotional, but it is a hobby we care about after all.

I do find it odd trying to find the motivation of GW telling certain types of players to "get lost" as Dozer suggests.
Typically, GW / Kirby just wants us to buy models and be happy.

Xenocidal, like you I have a problem putting my finger on what the heck is the intent to make the game tick and what GW is doing and what the players are to get out of the game.
I am sorely tempted to go with what Peregrine has claimed time and time again: they suck at writing rules.
If it is to be more an experience and an epic in scope tabletop RPG they should outline more engaging scenarios in their game setup rules.
Rather than Attack/Defend, deploy X or Y, you know the "usual" there should be some modular rule scenarios not too different than a "choose your own adventure".
You want to "forge the narrative" than bloody well make it conducive to that and make supplementary "rule books" like modules for D&D.
Instead they keep saying it is our responsibility and failing getting us to believe that: "we are a MODEL company not game company" absolving all responsibility.

The problem is the structure, even with this revolutionary / evolutionary change still has wargame elements to it so it confuses those who play "normal" strategy games into thinking it is competitive.

I have heard it said a few times being unhappy with "elitist" behavior and I find it kind of sad/comical someone would get all full of themselves playing war-games.
I had the pleasure of playing chess with a "master" at it, he was "trying a few things out with me" but he managed to make me feel included in his fun when it readily appeared he could have destroyed me easily. Good players make any game fun I find, even with the worst of rules and vice-versa with the "bad".

So yeah, it appears that those who liked what little "tactics" WHFB offered are cast adrift which is puzzling, the good thing is Kings of War looks like a viable alternative.
So sure, the change feels like a new beginning but I suspect after people get used to the new rule-set precious little would have changed in player bad behavior.

<edit> I must add this "re-boot" I strongly believe they are trying to find another demographic or be more appealing with a new rule-set since their current target market does not seem to be working for them.

 WargamingWarrior wrote:
Please, we mustn't let the wargaming community devolve in to 'hardcore' vs 'casuals' like in the video gaming community. For the most part, everyone who plays a wargame is playing to win, as competitiveness is in the very nature of wargaming, you are trying to get your army to beat your opponents army. it's just some people are more focused on winning than others which is fine up until the point that they forget that it's just a game with little plastic army men not a life or death situation.

As for AoS not being 'competitive', give it some time guys. I'm sure that as the game evolves and expands, so will the scope for tactical and competitive game play. It's still early days.

This is an excellent post, and again I apologize for allowing myself to get heated in the argument above. I'm actually quite interested in the idea that AoS could be "competitive" (the idea of having a game of chicken when deploying, like in choosing lists for some other games where you're allowed more than one, is pretty cool). I'll keep an eye on things

 Accolade wrote:
People have "thousands of posts" because they've been here for a while...I'm not sure what connection you're trying to make except that a lot of those posts have been about this topic?

Also, please stop with the martyr comments, they do nothing to strengthen your argument. All anyone is doing is explaining their opinions on this matter, they're not trying to silence you or control the paradigm of the game.

Accolade, Join Dates are also clearly posted under names. You'll notice I joined in 2011 and have less than 1,000 posts currently. We also have the ability to see avg number of posts per day. I'm going to go ahead and venture that people with 10+ posts per day are generally more vocal and invested in their positions than people like myself, who haven't posted this vociferously in... 2 years, maybe? I just quit this forum in apathy one day. Not sure why I came back.

And I disagree with you about not trying to silence or control the paradigm - I think that's exactly what a lot of these high post count people do. It's not a concept unique to this forum. I think there's even a saying for it - "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". We see it in political discourse all the time - he who yells loudest often wins. So, yes, post count does have a lot to do with controlling the discussion. Period. You see how people like me are being shouted down even here and now, in this thread. Sorry if pointing out that fact makes me sound like a "martyr"...

Oops, one more edit: RiTides, just saw your post. Thanks for the nice words, and it's all good. I've seen your posts around and know you're not one of the "bullies" I am describing.

Ok, now I really do have to stop!

It's not the the pointing out counts, xenocidal, it's that you're posting like "oh, well since I'm getting ganged up on and trying to be silenced, etc. etc." you seem to be appealing to the underdog position, that everyone is unfairly attacking you and that's not what's happening at all. A number of people just disagree with your take on what's going on.

And I think the high post counts are just a side effect of people being really interested in war gaming, otherwise why would they be here? There's plenty to talk about besides Warhammer's new lease on life, and over the years post counts will go up really high if you keep at it.

I just think comments calling out other groups as attackers, no matter what their position, are not beneficial. I try really hard to avoid that myself because it ends up diluting the point you're trying to make.

EDIT: anyway, not trying to start fights, just explaining my position

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Oops, one more edit: RiTides, just saw your post. Thanks for the nice words, and it's all good. I've seen your posts around and know you're not one of the "bullies" I am describing.

Ok, now I really do have to stop!

Well I appreciate that, I certainly try not to be even though I got a bit heated above. Cheers! Guess we should get back to the topic, but honestly I think it's the title of this thread that's contributing to things getting a little hot, as those terms divide people even though I think we probably approached the game very similarly (it actually sounds like you had a bit more success at events than I did in 7th ed, although running a forest spirit army when daemons were all the rage contributed a bit!).

Edit: I've gone ahead and removed the first part of the title, which I think should hopefully help steer things in the right direction

 RiTides wrote:

 WargamingWarrior wrote:
Please, we mustn't let the wargaming community devolve in to 'hardcore' vs 'casuals' like in the video gaming community. For the most part, everyone who plays a wargame is playing to win, as competitiveness is in the very nature of wargaming, you are trying to get your army to beat your opponents army. it's just some people are more focused on winning than others which is fine up until the point that they forget that it's just a game with little plastic army men not a life or death situation.

As for AoS not being 'competitive', give it some time guys. I'm sure that as the game evolves and expands, so will the scope for tactical and competitive game play. It's still early days.

This is an excellent post, and again I apologize for allowing myself to get heated in the argument above. I'm actually quite interested in the idea that AoS could be "competitive" (the idea of having a game of chicken when deploying, like in choosing lists for some other games where you're allowed more than one, is pretty cool). I'll keep an eye on things

Cheers.
It's no problem, wargaming is one of those hobbies that attracts the most dedicated of people as it requires a sizeable investment of time and money , so its only natural for us wargamers to be passionate about it and the conversation to get heated.

I wasn't much of a competitive player as other people but I'm really interested in competitive AoS gameplay as it provides a bit of a challenge as it's still new and relatively bare bones. It'll also interesting to see how it evolves over time and see which direction GW takes it in. From my first game I have learned that deployment is highly important now as players take it in turn to put down units. I used a unit of Night Goblins as bait, my opponent put down a cavalry unit right in front of them. I had my Troll and Goblin Spear Chukka backing up the Night Goblins, so once the Knights hit the Night Goblins I can counter attack. Also, another important thing now is the fact that once a turn is over you and your opponent have to roll again to determine who gets to decide whether they go first in the next turn. So you really have to plan ahead to ensure that you aren't caught off guard if your opponent gets to go first but still in a optimal position to attack if you get to go first.

Should have told this guy then.