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.

A pure campaign weekend without competition is pointless.
No thrill inside.

That right there is a wargaming equivalent of Calvinball.

Wonderwolf wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

But one of the main things that separates it from pewpewing kids arbitrarly pushing toys off the table are rules that are to provide a fair competition and require certain level of brain work. Kids don't care about that, adults do

Wargames with a "meta-game" of list-building around them do not, by definition, provide a fair competition. The two are mutually exclusive. As long as the slight chance exists, that the (slightly) better player with a (slightly) worse list loses against a (slightly) worse player with a (slightly) better list, any notion of "competition" is an illusion. You can never be sure that any victory or defeat was due to skill or "meta".


And people who want that kind of brain-stimulus you speak of, would go compete in a chess-tournament. Wargames cannot possibly cater to that.

It won't be fair in an absolute sense (and chess aren't fair in an absolute sense either) but it doesn't mean that you don't try to get as close as possible. Not to mention that both players aproach the same meta game, wouldn't that make it fair and a skill in itself, to recognise and adapt to it properly? I prefer tactics on the table over strategy on the list sheet but it takes some brains to write a good list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
That right there is a wargaming equivalent of Calvinball.

And a narrative equivalent of Kung Fury.

Plumbumbarum wrote:


It won't be fair in an absolute sense (and chess aren't fair in an absolute sense either) but it doesn't mean that you don't try to get as close as possible. Not to mention that both players aproach the same meta game, wouldn't that make it fair and a skill in itself, to recognise and adapt to it properly? I prefer tactics on the table over strategy on the list sheet but it takes some brains to write a good list.

If you try to get as close as possible, Chess (and millions of others) are a lot closer than the most balanced wargame out there. Prize money is also a lot better and it takes a lot more brains to win any half-serious chess tournament than all the list-writing in 40K history. So why bother?

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
Forgive me if I'm being naive but isnt there a difference between a campaign weekend and a tournament. The former being a narrative event which this is, the latter being a heavily competitive environment.

But there isn't any narrative or campaign by the looks of things. There's no story you're acting out, or narrative structure. Just a random collection of games with random stuff thrown in for the hell of it.

They have said they will reveal more. A tiny snippet of information isn't much to get upset about.

I think the conceit that if an attending player does not know the scenarios, game sizes, or comp before a campaign, the entire exercise is pointless and without merit rather absurd, personally.

AoS is specifically designed so that you can see what you're up against and select an force to compete with the scenario rules and opponents presented on the fly - surely running a series of games with unknown rules in a game system that has no requirement for pre-written army lists is reasonable?

Wonderwolf wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


It won't be fair in an absolute sense (and chess aren't fair in an absolute sense either) but it doesn't mean that you don't try to get as close as possible. Not to mention that both players aproach the same meta game, wouldn't that make it fair and a skill in itself, to recognise and adapt to it properly? I prefer tactics on the table over strategy on the list sheet but it takes some brains to write a good list.

If you try to get as close as possible, Chess (and millions of others) are a lot closer than the most balanced wargame out there. Prize money is also a lot better and it takes a lot more brains to win any half-serious chess tournament than all the list-writing in 40K history. So why bother?

It's a different kind of game, you can play both chess and wargames. I play whfb for regiments, close combat on pc for ww II specific tactics, level 7 for ufo skirmish, chess for abstract strategy etc. All require a different type of brainwork and provide different pleasures, pewpew random provide none and require none.

 Grimtuff wrote:
That right there is a wargaming equivalent of Calvinball.

Exalted.

Wonderwolf wrote:
Prize money is also a lot better

Who cares about prize money? You think that's the only reason people play the game competitively?

Plumbumbarum wrote:


It's a different kind of game, you can play both chess and wargames. I play whfb for regiments, close combat on pc for ww II specific tactics, level 7 for ufo skirmish, chess for abstract strategy etc. All require a different type of brainwork and provide different pleasures, pewpew random provide none and require none.

That is inherently contradictory.

If you play and enjoy different games for different reasons, "different type[s] of brainwork", than you acknowledge that it isn't as simple and binary as "more/less competitive", but more multi-dimensional, with different appeals and qualities for different games.

If that is true, companies experimenting and innovating with appealing to different aspects of hobby-enjoyment seems both reasonable and far more important than simply aping what's been done before, even if it may potentially fail to catch on.

Wonderwolf wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


It's a different kind of game, you can play both chess and wargames. I play whfb for regiments, close combat on pc for ww II specific tactics, level 7 for ufo skirmish, chess for abstract strategy etc. All require a different type of brainwork and provide different pleasures, pewpew random provide none and require none.

That is inherently contradictory.

If you play and enjoy different games for different reasons, "different type[s] of brainwork", than you acknowledge that it isn't as simple and binary as "more/less competitive", but more multi-dimensional, with different appeals and qualities for different games.

If that is true, companies experimenting and innovating with appealing to different aspects of hobby-enjoyment seems both reasonable and far more important than simply aping what's been done before, even if it may potentially fail to catch on.

It's not. There are games that require brainwork and there is AoS, especialy if you add so much randomness to it.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
Prize money is also a lot better

Who cares about prize money? You think that's the only reason people play the game competitively?

The "only" reason? Please note the use of the word also.

Popular synonyms include: too, as well, besides, in addition, additionally, furthermore, further, moreover, into the bargain, on top (of that), over and above that, what's more, to boot, else, then, equally, etc..

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I genuinely can't see any point to that style of play.

Seriously?

I get that there are people who won't like this approach, but you really cannot see the point? Have a few beers, push some models round the table and roll dice? Absolutely no stress over rules or tournament placings, just a laid back weekend playing a few games?

You really cannot see why there may be some people who find that attractive?

No, I can't, not as-described in that advert. Why? Because the style of play you're describing is one I very much enjoy, yet that blurb makes me actually fething recoil. Even when you're just "pushing models around the table" there has to be some bloody point to what you're doing, or else it's literally pointless and you'd be as well dispensing with the pretense and just getting hammered with your pals at a pub. I rarely get to play these days, any "army-scale" projects I undertake are purely for my own modelling pleasure, but when I do game it's primarily narrative-focused campaigns in Mordheim and INQ28, I'm not coming at this from the perspective of some rabid tournament junkie. Mordheim has a lot of random elements and is built entirely around campaigns...but those random elements come from a structured rule system and the players operate within the limitations of warband selection - AoS has neither of those things. INQ28 has almost totally freeform character & warband creation...within the context of an extremely deep & crunchy stat & rules system and with the understanding you'll have a third player acting as GM to make sure the narrative is fun for everyone - AoS has neither of those things.

Your problem is you assume I'm criticising casual beer & pretzels play, when I'm actually saying, as someone who enjoys that style of play, that this nonsense doesn't even reach that level and expressing the fact I'm staggered at the idea people would find THAT appealing. This isn't a few mates getting pished and playing a few relaxed hands of blackjack where they don't really care who wins, it's mates trying to play relaxed blackjack but each gets dealt a different number of cards, the deck varies in size and composition, and the dealer can randomly declare that the target is 14, or 26, or 211.

Even if you're playing a game from a relaxed, breeze-shooting perspective, you're still playing a game. Given the shoddy state of the AoS rules when I saw GW were hosting an event I thought they'd be adding the necessary structure that's missing from the base rules, and instead they're boastfully advertising the fact that not only will they not be adding more structure, they'll actually be undermining what few tiny scraps of it already existed in AoS. It's a joke.

 Yodhrin wrote:

it's literally what you do as a little child when you run around with your mates shouting "pchew pchew" and arguing over whether you got shot or if your super-mega-shield makes you invincible.

Be fair here - we all play with toy soldiers.

To an outsider, what you do may seem little different to what kids get up to (granted, your armies will appear larger and better painted, but that is the extent of it). Not knocking you or gaming here, it is the same in many male-dominated hobbies.

And? I could make completely uninformed pronouncements about a football match, as an outsider, and that would have exactly zero bearing on the validity or otherwise of the arguments of an informed, engaged fan of a specific football team regarding a specific aspect of that team. There is a demonstrable difference between playing make-believe, playing with army-men, and wargaming, just as there's a demonstrable difference between playing "football" in the park with a handful of kids using sweaters for goalposts, organised amateur 5-a-side, and a match between two pro teams, and whether an outsider is capable of discerning those distinctions does not change the fact of their existence.

 Yodhrin wrote:
This isn't a narrative event. Narratives still require structure

It will have structure and a story line (and I would not be surprised if the effects of this weekend start popping up in the fluff). It won't just be a bunch of random things going on - GW are really quite good at this type of event.

How can it have a structure when it encourages participants to bring literally whatever they like, and boasts so much randomness that you might as well not care about how your games actually end up playing out?

My main issue is that you think it's relevant to the people posting in this thread at all. As far as I can tell no one said anything about prize money before you bought it up and it was completely irrelevant.

Felt more like a subtle dig at people fussing over GW's rules than anything, but maybe that's just me.

 Sidstyler wrote:
My main issue is that you think it's relevant to the people posting in this thread at all. As far as I can tell no one said anything about prize money before you bought it up and it was completely irrelevant.

Felt more like a subtle dig at people fussing over GW's rules than anything, but maybe that's just me.

It was a throwaway line. Either way. If competitive play and challenging your brainpower is your main reason for playing games, 40K (and wargames in general) aren't likely high on your list.

If you purposefully opt for games that aren't a very good fit to challenge you competitively compared to what's out there (including outdoor games/sports with insane amounts of random elements to account for, such as competitive golf), you must have other reasons to be attracted to these games.

If there are other a multitude of reasons to feel attracted to one game over another, not all of them including "competitiveness" or "minimal randomness" as the be-all-end-all thing to worry over, it's not a far stretch to see how different games might place priorities differently, including possibly in ways you personally don't find attractive or appealing.

Wonderwolf wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


It won't be fair in an absolute sense (and chess aren't fair in an absolute sense either) but it doesn't mean that you don't try to get as close as possible. Not to mention that both players aproach the same meta game, wouldn't that make it fair and a skill in itself, to recognise and adapt to it properly? I prefer tactics on the table over strategy on the list sheet but it takes some brains to write a good list.

If you try to get as close as possible, Chess (and millions of others) are a lot closer than the most balanced wargame out there. Prize money is also a lot better and it takes a lot more brains to win any half-serious chess tournament than all the list-writing in 40K history. So why bother?

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, unless all you really want to do is make disingenuous arguments. The fact you're talking about ridiculous things like prize money makes it seem like you're doing the latter, instead of addressing the fact that AoS is about as far to the silly side as you can go on the spectrum of competitive gaming.

RoninXiC wrote:
Best tournament rules ever.

Does it actually call it a tournament??

Looks like good fun to me.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good, unless all you really want to do is make disingenuous arguments. The fact you're talking about ridiculous things like prize money makes it seem like you're doing the latter, instead of addressing the fact that AoS is about as far to the silly side as you can go on the spectrum of competitive gaming.

Obviously. But it is doing so intentionally. It's not trying to appeal to the competitive itch.

While that may not appeal to you or other posters in this thread subjectively, it may well appeal to others who simply aren't looking for that competitive challenge.

It's only when "competitiveness" is falsely put on the pedestal as some kind of universal or overriding "quality indicator" for games in general, that this subjective preference is presented as objective assessment of the game's quality. But the premise itself is wrong, as can be shown by many people who prefer less competitive games (e.g. 40K, X-Wing, Warmachine) over more competitive games (e.g. Chess).

Therefore, other factors determining a person's enjoyment of a game must exist, and if other such factors exist, it's not that far-fetched that some games might decide to cater to factors other than "competitiveness", perhaps even forgo "competitiveness" entirely in the same way some abstract games forgo theme or story entirely.

I'm pretty sure Gw don't call their tournaments "tournaments" anymore. It's a taboo word to them, much like "wrestling" and "wrestler" in WWE.

Look, we know what it is, just call it that.

 Yodhrin wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I genuinely can't see any point to that style of play.

Seriously?

I get that there are people who won't like this approach, but you really cannot see the point? Have a few beers, push some models round the table and roll dice? Absolutely no stress over rules or tournament placings, just a laid back weekend playing a few games?

You really cannot see why there may be some people who find that attractive?

No, I can't, not as-described in that advert. Why? Because the style of play you're describing is one I very much enjoy, yet that blurb makes me actually fething recoil. Even when you're just "pushing models around the table" there has to be some bloody point to what you're doing, or else it's literally pointless and you'd be as well dispensing with the pretense and just getting hammered with your pals at a pub. I rarely get to play these days, any "army-scale" projects I undertake are purely for my own modelling pleasure, but when I do game it's primarily narrative-focused campaigns in Mordheim and INQ28, I'm not coming at this from the perspective of some rabid tournament junkie. Mordheim has a lot of random elements and is built entirely around campaigns...but those random elements come from a structured rule system and the players operate within the limitations of warband selection - AoS has neither of those things. INQ28 has almost totally freeform character & warband creation...within the context of an extremely deep & crunchy stat & rules system and with the understanding you'll have a third player acting as GM to make sure the narrative is fun for everyone - AoS has neither of those things.

Your problem is you assume I'm criticising casual beer & pretzels play, when I'm actually saying, as someone who enjoys that style of play, that this nonsense doesn't even reach that level and expressing the fact I'm staggered at the idea people would find THAT appealing. This isn't a few mates getting pished and playing a few relaxed hands of blackjack where they don't really care who wins, it's mates trying to play relaxed blackjack but each gets dealt a different number of cards, the deck varies in size and composition, and the dealer can randomly declare that the target is 14, or 26, or 211.

Even if you're playing a game from a relaxed, breeze-shooting perspective, you're still playing a game. Given the shoddy state of the AoS rules when I saw GW were hosting an event I thought they'd be adding the necessary structure that's missing from the base rules, and instead they're boastfully advertising the fact that not only will they not be adding more structure, they'll actually be undermining what few tiny scraps of it already existed in AoS. It's a joke.

A very good post, above all the casual vs competitive bs. It's like casual was an excuse for pointless or mindless, I enjoy casual/ scenario based just as much as cutthroat but that whw event seems just like playing football blindfolded with multiple balls on the pitch and referee randomly breaking legs with a stick to me.

 Yodhrin wrote:


No, I can't, not as-described in that advert. Why? Because the style of play you're describing is one I very much enjoy, yet that blurb

Ah, I think I am with you - it is possible that the advert assumes attendees are already familiar with this kind of event (I imagine there is a fairly limited pool of people who go to these events, globally speaking).

The actual event, if it runs true to their usual form, will be somewhat better.

 Yodhrin wrote:

How can it have a structure when it encourages participants to bring literally whatever they like, and boasts so much randomness that you might as well not care about how your games actually end up playing out?

I should say, I don't know how they are going to be running this event, but I have attended others in the past.

If it is like those, there will be a strong story line throughout the weekend, I am guessing something along the lines of 'forces of Chaos in this Realm are gathering under the banner of the Big Bad, the forces of Order march to stop them, and this is how the guys in Death and Destruction are interfering with both.'

Broadly speaking, something like that. The events they are talking about will all be rooted in the story (like, I don't know, something along the lines of 'the Chaos guys managed to complete their ritual during the last set of battles, so any daemons get to be re-summoned on a 5+ every turn.' That kind of thing) and be connected to the scenarios you are playing or have played, dependant on the balance of power each side has managed to attain thus far (which will boil down to how many battles have been won, but may be connected to what happens on specific tables too).

They are going to let you bring whatever you like because the game has only just come out, and there are a lot of 8e armies out there - no sense in turning them away. However, by being able to pigeon-hole them into one of the four powers in AoS, they can bring a semblance of sense to things.

Or they may be doing something completely different!

They may cock it up. That is possible. However, the track record of the Warhammer World guys is pretty firm, so I would not write them off until the event has actually come and gone. If it ends up being a disaster, give me a shout and I'll eat humble pie

However, I would be very surprised if it is truly as random as people are fearing. I would expect it to be pretty solid.

Was thinking of going myself but we have an Apoc game set for that weekend, and I didn't want to let the chaps down...

Campaign event is the important phrase here. They don't run tournaments at Warhammer World - which is true given the way the rulespacks work.

The highly unstructured nature of the event means that your enjoyment of the campaign will be highly dependent on the random scenarios that the event team come up with as well as the attitude of the crowd you are playing with. For me, the high upfront investment for the cost of the event, plus transport, lodging, food and drink, makes this too much of a gamble. When I mean gamble, I do not mean "winning" the event but rather achieving an objective other than just rolling dice.

The problem with wargaming being run as this type of unstructured event is that there is ALWAYS an element of competitive tension between the playing participants i.e. Order vs Chaos or Sigmarites vs Khorne, etc. etc. This is not a co-operative style RPG where all the players are / should be working together to defeat a third party controlled by the all knowing GM. If you are in an event with that competitive tension and you do not achieve your objectives because of something you deem unfair, then you don't have fun. The fact that it is unstructured means there's a greater chance of something like that occurring. At least when the GM in an RPG is being incredibly unfair, players can vote with their feet. After all everyone is essentially trying to play out a story where the PCs win in the end - the GM shoots himself in the foot if he turns out to have a megalomaniacal mindset.

This doesn't really work with wargames - WW events are trying to promote a cooperative mindset (don't be beardy/cheesy to your opponents) while still having a situation where one side has to beat the other at the end of the day. It is this basic dynamic which CLASHES with the unstructured nature of the game.

Who says that WHW are "coming up with" the scenarios?

There's talk of a second book detailing Realm of Shadow and Metal right now, and given that the first book detailed Realm of Life and Fire--it's not unbelievable that you would be playing those rules.

More arguing and richard-waving in a NandR thread. Take it elsewhere please.

Nidzrule! wrote:
Campaign event is the important phrase here. They don't run tournaments at Warhammer World - which is true given the way the rulespacks work.

Right, so, it's the GW equivalent of "Newspeak".

Perhaps we'll call it FineSpeak.

 Grimtuff wrote:
That right there is a wargaming equivalent of being sent to a Siberian Gulag.

I think this is what you were trying to say

 sing your life wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
That right there is a wargaming equivalent of being sent to a Siberian Gulag.

I think this is what you were trying to say

No, I know what I was saying perfectly clearly.

I suggest you look up what Calvinball is...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Nidzrule! wrote:
Campaign event is the important phrase here. They don't run tournaments at Warhammer World - which is true given the way the rulespacks work.

Right, so, it's the GW equivalent of "Newspeak".

Perhaps we'll call it FineSpeak.

As I said earlier, It's the GW equivalent of WWE's refusal to use the terms "wrestler" and "wrestling". We know what it damn well is. Just call it that.

 Grimtuff wrote:


As I said earlier, It's the GW equivalent of WWE's refusal to use the terms "wrestler" and "wrestling". We know what it damn well is. Just call it that.

But that doesn't make any sense. If they'd call it a tournament, we'd be back to you blasting them for laying down guidelines incompatible with what many people expect from a tournament. Yet when they don't call it a tournament, because they obviously don't want to do a tournament, it's also wrong?

It's a tautological loop, where nobody could ever run an event that is not a tournament. Call it a tournament, but don't regulate it like Nova... you're doing it wrong. Don't call it a tournament ... you're sidestepping the vocabulary.

How would anyone ever be able to do a non-tournament event?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Nidzrule! wrote:
Campaign event is the important phrase here. They don't run tournaments at Warhammer World - which is true given the way the rulespacks work.

Right, so, it's the GW equivalent of "Newspeak".

Perhaps we'll call it FineSpeak.

It'll probably be "bysso loqueris" or some other latin. A lot easier to copyright then.

 Melcavuk wrote:
They call it a campaign weekend, i cant see the word tournament on their event pack. If its there i over looked it otherwise its player having assigned that word

I am aware. I was questioning other posters who call it a tournament. No way this disaster is worthy of the term.