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.

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:


@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.

You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.

Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.

No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.


@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.

5-7 out of ten. Still more drawing me to it than warmahordes, definitely, but that has more to do with the lore being more interesting I guess.

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:


@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.

You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.

Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.

No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.


@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.

Considering this is a 40k thread, talking about 40k, why are you even talking about another game?...

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:


@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.

You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.

Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.

No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.


@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.

Considering this is a 40k thread, talking about 40k, why are you even talking about another game?...

I'm comparing 40k to a game that it is frequently compared to, along with many other more balanced games to show why it falls flat.
Its hard to judge something in a vacuum. Everything is relative.

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:


@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.

You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.

Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.

No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.


@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.

Considering this is a 40k thread, talking about 40k, why are you even talking about another game?...

I'm comparing 40k to a game that it is frequently compared to, along with many other more balanced games to show why it falls flat.
Its hard to judge something in a vacuum. Everything is relative.

No, you're trying to tell me why new players should lose to "experienced" players in 40k, not another game. There is no need for comparison. Next time just read the post a little better before your need to show off your "intelligence" overwhelms you.

Let me start by saying you are being incredibly rude in a discussion that has managed to be civil for roughly 4 pages so far.

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:


@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.

You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.

Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.

No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.


@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.

Considering this is a 40k thread, talking about 40k, why are you even talking about another game?...

I'm comparing 40k to a game that it is frequently compared to, along with many other more balanced games to show why it falls flat.
Its hard to judge something in a vacuum. Everything is relative.

No, you're trying to tell me why new players should lose to "experienced" players in 40k, not another game.

Again, you'll find that I never once suggested that experience was needed to play 40k. My whole point was that 40k was alone in this, and that no other game, including table tops and other competitive games, treats experience with such disregard.
This is because anyone can play the most OP eldar list, and find such a list by using a search engine. I don't even think you'd need to look at a battle report before hand unless you're playing one of the other powerful codexes.

Salous wrote:

There is no need for comparison. Next time just read the post a little better before your need to show off your "intelligence" overwhelms you.

Perhaps if you tried reading what other people are saying rather than leaping to your own conclusions, you wouldn't feel the need to belittle others so.

Guys, when you're quick replying to each other with little snippets vs 10x as much quoted stuff, please SPOILER or delete the dead quotes. Thanks.

8 out of ten - gameplay 6, fluff and models 10

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.

One 40k issue is the cost of models, people invest so much money and time in their armies, they get emotionally attached to them and hence a loss can be painful. Thus people do plenty to avoid a loss - manifested in things mentioned above with flavour of the month armies, eldar D wep ,WK spam etc.

A boardgame we can just rock up to and just play and win or lose its no biggie.

If 40k had cheaper models, the player base would be bigger and people would (hopefully) not get so hyped at gametime. But yeah I agree fully the balance merry go round as GW try to force model sales is an issue.

+1 to JohnHwangDD - best Avatar.

Akiasura wrote:
@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.

That doesn't answer my question, WHY is new players losing good specifically?
You can stop with the condescension on work and whatever, because it's perfectly understandable that people wouldn't want their LEISURE TIME wasted by just being walked over, particularly in such an expensive and time-consuming hobby to begin with where it's not reasonable to demand they devote EVEN MORE time just so they'll have a chance and actually be able to enjoy themselves.
How is making things awful for new players that way good?

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.

That doesn't answer my question, WHY is new players losing good specifically?
You can stop with the condescension on work and whatever, because it's perfectly understandable that people wouldn't want their LEISURE TIME wasted by just being walked over, particularly in such an expensive and time-consuming hobby to begin with where it's not reasonable to demand they devote EVEN MORE time just so they'll have a chance and actually be able to enjoy themselves.
How is making things awful for new players that way good?

Newer players have an uphill battle in nearly every game. It's a sign of a balanced game when newer players must spend time practicing to beat veteran players.
This is true in every fighting game.
This is true in every shooting game.
This is true in every MOBA.
These are all wildly popular genres, more so than table top games, that eat up people leisure time. Nearly all other table top games work in this manner as well. Even the more cooperative ones, like pandemic, get easier the more experience someone has.

In those games, and nearly every sport or competitive event out there, losing to an experienced player who is showing you the ropes builds a drive into you. You find other less experienced players, and keep playing until you get better, and eventually you get good enough to play with nearly anyone. Some people go further and play at extreme levels of competition, but that's not needed to enjoy the game in most metas.


40k has essentially adopted a pay to win style. With enough money and an internet connection, anyone can field a top tier army and beat anyone who doesn't come with a similar arsenal. How is that in any way good?

 scommy wrote:
8 out of ten

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.

As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.

That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?

I think of 40k as a game that barely functions as a medium to enjoy the great lore and models of 40k in a tabletop setting. It does a very poor job in this regard. I don't think I've ever played a game that demanded so much money for so little quality.

4/10

 Vaktathi wrote:

 scommy wrote:
8 out of ten

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.

As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.

That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?

Thats how we interpreted the rules that was 1 year ago, we really went thru the rules carefully at the time and triple checked. I was none too impressed my Soviet Sappers did not do their duty for the motherland. Anyways I don't really wanna hijack this thread into a FoW rules discussion, I would rather have a root canal.

 scommy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 scommy wrote:
8 out of ten

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.

As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.

That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?

Thats how we interpreted the rules that was 1 year ago, we really went thru the rules carefully at the time and triple checked. I was none too impressed my Soviet Sappers did not do their duty for the motherland. Anyways I don't really wanna hijack this thread into a FoW rules discussion, I would rather have a root canal.

That's fine, we just can't forget that 40k has more than its fair share of such oddities as well, like why does a velocity locked airplane crash if there's an infantry unit on the ground where its 18" move would take it?

 scommy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 scommy wrote:
8 out of ten

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.

As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.

That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?

Thats how we interpreted the rules that was 1 year ago, we really went thru the rules carefully at the time and triple checked. I was none too impressed my Soviet Sappers did not do their duty for the motherland. Anyways I don't really wanna hijack this thread into a FoW rules discussion, I would rather have a root canal.

"My word, that creature is as tall as a skyscraper! Shoot it!"

"But sir, we can't get a good shot, it's toe is in that building over there!"

"Blast!"

What I don't understand is how people will on one hand bemoan the competitive and bloated nature of 40k, and then cry about how Age of Sigmar lacks content and can't be played at tournament level.

They all seem to have these weird rose-tinted glasses about a singular edition that was good, usually for their army specifically, and claim that it was the standard of quality for wargaming.

I don't think the rules are the problem, since they're constantly evolving and changing, so if you don't like it now, wait a year and the whole meta will be different.
Maybe somebody will come out with a new stratagem that blows away the competition.

I will say that the prices are absolutely a problem, as EVERY GW wargame is expensive as hell to get into.
The models are disgustingly costly for what you get, (especially finecast, since they're warped and broken more often than not) and the codexes aren't much better.

The only thing that still maintains standard and reasonable prices are the Black Library books. Its usually 7.99 or 11.00 per book.
And you can pick them up cheaper at secondhand books stores and halfprice books.

 Mantorok wrote:
What I don't understand is how people will on one hand bemoan the competitive and bloated nature of 40k, and then cry about how Age of Sigmar lacks content and can't be played at tournament level.

They all seem to have these weird rose-tinted glasses about a singular edition that was good, usually for their army specifically, and claim that it was the standard of quality for wargaming.

I don't think the rules are the problem, since they're constantly evolving and changing, so if you don't like it now, wait a year and the whole meta will be different.
Maybe somebody will come out with a new stratagem that blows away the competition.

I will say that the prices are absolutely a problem, as EVERY GW wargame is expensive as hell to get into.
The models are disgustingly costly for what you get, (especially finecast, since they're warped and broken more often than not) and the codexes aren't much better.

The only thing that still maintains standard and reasonable prices are the Black Library books. Its usually 7.99 or 11.00 per book.
And you can pick them up cheaper at secondhand books stores and halfprice books.

My biggest issue with AoS was the fact that it's easily broken if you look for it (not that 40k isn't, but AoS it's a bigger problem), and the lack of points means you have to resort to using your own comp system, and I personally hate using anything unofficial.

Had you asked me 2 weeks ago, I'd have said 5/10 probably. Now that I have found X-Wing, much like the OP, I'd give it no more than 3/10.

Different strokes for different folks.

Personally, since I've now lived through 4 editions, and my gaming group has had a lot of kids, we can't get as many games in, so the minute changes in the rules are confusing, and we spend as much time playing as thumbing through a big tome, that is poorly edited, in my opinion.

The movement templates might limit movement a tad, maybe, but at least my WAAC friend doesn't need to verify my every move to make sure I don't go forward an extra 1/8 of an inch.

And honestly, I care more about skirmish games. The scale turns me off. But I understand the appeal if that's your thing. These days I'm less 40K, FoW and CoC and much more Infinity, Frostgrave or Malifaux. And X-Wing.

 krodarklorr wrote:

My biggest issue with AoS was the fact that it's easily broken if you look for it (not that 40k isn't, but AoS it's a bigger problem), and the lack of points means you have to resort to using your own comp system, and I personally hate using anything unofficial.

I feel that's fair.
However, GW has established that AoS doesn't require points values.
They WANT you to come up with your own system to manage play.
That way the onus is on the player to determine whether a army list is broken or cheese, and to choose opponents accordingly.
Warhammer Fantasy is made for the Beer and Pretzels players, with 40K for the pro-level tournament circuit.

They just want to appease everybody.

 Mantorok wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

My biggest issue with AoS was the fact that it's easily broken if you look for it (not that 40k isn't, but AoS it's a bigger problem), and the lack of points means you have to resort to using your own comp system, and I personally hate using anything unofficial.

I feel that's fair.
However, GW has established that AoS doesn't require points values.
They WANT you to come up with your own system to manage play.
That way the onus is on the player to determine whether a army list is broken or cheese, and to choose opponents accordingly.
Warhammer Fantasy is made for the Beer and Pretzels players, with 40K for the pro-level tournament circuit.

They just want to appease everybody.

40k is beer and pretzels too, we just shoehorn it into competitive play because we have a Reece and we can

I rated it a 7....

Mostly because the universe and fluff surround most factions is great. Don't like the new trademarking GW is doing at the moment.

Hell at least it's not AoS which seems to be having some personality issues atm. Tried reading the fluff, are they fighting in heaven now? No idea now why they are even fighting at all!!! I have no clue what is going on in that game, no idea how units work now.... circle bases now? Like it's basically a skirmish like version of 40k but with more swords and no point costs?

Anyway back on topic! The rules for 40k have never been competitive, it was originally never suppose to be a competitive game, more fun than anything else. You know silly things, like how my mate has this specific ethereal in his army who has routed ork mobs, guardmen, chaos etc after winning cc. How a Battlecannon scatters through 3 buildings, hits a pathfinder who survives, having a laugh how cinematic it would of been to see a tank round miss, go through 4 walls and shower a guy with rubble, and then started pissing ourselves when that said rubble technically gave him a cover save.

You always have tfg who gets super competitive and moans when you tell him how he has interpreted that super new rule he's learnt or how "stupid" it is he can't hit you or you wiped his unit of termies out with around 30 odd flashlights. I had one guy moan at me when I forgot to snap fire my meltaguns, when a dreadnought charged my chimera. The same guy moan when I said sod it and let my opponent kill a guy because we didn't want to look up some obscure rule over the save of one meltagun.

What I personally find annoying is how much of a gap there is between top tier and even middle tier armies. I'm actually happy enough with the rules. Another issue is the pricing, which means when a rule change or codex change makes stuff pretty much useless it costs an arm and a leg. Luckily with guard hardly changing since late 3rd I'm not massively affected.

 Lobukia wrote:
40k is beer and pretzels too, we just shoehorn it into competitive play because we have a Reece and we can

This. I recently played a complete GW game stone cold sober, and I'm going to come right out and say that it only works if you have alcohol to take the edge off, and salty snacks to keep the alcohol flowing. 40k shouldn't be a competitive game, and GW has worked ridiculously hard to make it not-competitive via Maelstrom. It is amazing that people keep trying to pound that square 40k peg back in the round tournament hole.

Akiasura wrote:
Newer players have an uphill battle in nearly every game. It's a sign of a balanced game when newer players must spend time practicing to beat veteran players.
This is true in every fighting game.
This is true in every shooting game.
This is true in every MOBA.
These are all wildly popular genres, more so than table top games, that eat up people leisure time. Nearly all other table top games work in this manner as well. Even the more cooperative ones, like pandemic, get easier the more experience someone has.

Aaaaand you missed the point yet again Akiasura, I'm not concerned about how many times this mistake appears in other stuff or it being a "sign of a balanced game" or whatever, I asked SPECIFICALLY why new players losing is good and nothing else holds any relevant. THAT is the question I want answered, I don't care about the other stuff.

Akiasura wrote:
In those games, and nearly every sport or competitive event out there, losing to an experienced player who is showing you the ropes builds a drive into you. You find other less experienced players, and keep playing until you get better, and eventually you get good enough to play with nearly anyone. Some people go further and play at extreme levels of competition, but that's not needed to enjoy the game in most metas.

Or, speaking from experience, it just grinds you down and makes you miserable because just losing over and over and over again without accomplishing anything is NOT FUN and if it's clear that it's not going to stop being like that, you give up because it's really pointless.
I speak as someone who tried Call of Duty multiplayer once. And it was just like you said, the "experienced" people kept snuffing me out over and over and over again, and I barely got to do anything at all. Did that give me a "drive"? No! It made me quit because I play games ot have fun and getting steamrolled with no chance of competition isn't fun, neither is exhausting myself spending huge amounts of time in training or practice (which is tedious and not entertaining) just to be some uber-competitive dude and FINALLY MAYBE have some fun.
And that's not the only example, the sheer prevalence of this crappy idea is what's almost completely turned me off to online multiplayer. And quite frankly I'm glad it's not in 40k.

Akiasura wrote:
40k has essentially adopted a pay to win style. With enough money and an internet connection, anyone can field a top tier army and beat anyone who doesn't come with a similar arsenal. How is that in any way good?

It isn't. It's also not what I'm defending.
I'm defending how new players can actually have a shot and maybe win games. Because I'm not spending so much time, money and effort on my Dark Angels just so they can be curb-stomped by everyone I play against.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mantorok wrote:
I feel that's fair.
However, GW has established that AoS doesn't require points values.
They WANT you to come up with your own system to manage play.
That way the onus is on the player to determine whether a army list is broken or cheese, and to choose opponents accordingly.

And that's a terrible, terrible idea that can never, ever work.
Many (possibly even most) players don't have the capacity to figure out how much every bloody model is worth points-wise.
It's not a gameplay design decision or another way of playing, it's a MISTAKE and that's how it should be treated.

I rated it as an 8. I play once a week at my FLGS and have a good time. If I lose I learn something new about the game and my army, if I win I look at what worked and what didn't work. I've been playing since 7th came out so I guess I'm not as jaded as everyone else. I played CSM and lost pretty much every game to my friend playing SM and Iron Hands, then Daemonkin came out and I revamped my army and I haven't lost in a few weeks to IG and Iron Hands. I'd like to start playing twice a week but no one is ever free on Sundays near me.

The game is expensive but the only thing I haven't bought second hand are some chaos warhounds to use as flesh hounds.

Crash,
The second block you quoted directly answers your question. It's the very first sentence.

Your own feelings aside, that is the point of having new players lose to more experienced players. Perhaps competitive games are not for you if you find this to be so terrible, but competitive games are a wildly successful model for games, and have been for generations.

Calling it a mistake is well, a mistake.

Edit:
I'd also appreciate it if you can address how a pay to win model is superior to a balanced competitive game. It was the last thing in my previous post.

Akiasura wrote:
Crash,
The second block you quoted directly answers your question. It's the very first sentence.

Then you could've just posted that bit phrased a direct response and left out the filler.

Akiasura wrote:
Your own feelings aside, that is the point of having new players lose to more experienced players. Perhaps competitive games are not for you if you find this to be so terrible, but competitive games are a wildly successful model for games, and have been for generations.

And it's a terrible point, not everyone is going to be drawn in by getting walked all over by "pro players" because it's much more likely to feel hopefully and depressing. A much better way to draw people in is to give them a good experience, that involves perfectly reasonable chances of winning OR losing.
I imagine the success is because people play in places/metas/whatever where they AREN'T being curb-stomped by people who've played longer.

Akiasura wrote:
Calling it a mistake is well, a mistake.

No. Letting newbies get curb-stomped just because they're new and expecting them to just suck it up is a mistake, as is defending that.

Akiasura wrote:
Edit:
I'd also appreciate it if you can address how a pay to win model is superior to a balanced competitive game. It was the last thing in my previous post.

No, because that's not what I said, that was in the last part of my previous response to you.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

I speak as someone who tried Call of Duty multiplayer once. And it was just like you said, the "experienced" people kept snuffing me out over and over and over again, and I barely got to do anything at all. Did that give me a "drive"? No! It made me quit because I play games ot have fun and getting steamrolled with no chance of competition isn't fun, neither is exhausting myself spending huge amounts of time in training or practice (which is tedious and not entertaining) just to be some uber-competitive dude and FINALLY MAYBE have some fun.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from, but there are a lot of people willing to put up with the competitive grind and themselves become experienced players. Most games with a competitive landscape take at least hundreds of hours to get to the top percentile, which is where I want to be if I'm going to play a competitive game.

So what I do when I see a competitive game I like (such as CoD or Hearthstone) is say to myself, do I like this game enough to just play it some casually -- or do I love it enough to throw a thousand hours at it?

In any game with a ranked system, it's really hard to "feel good" (high win ratio, high rank) without spending a lot of time at it. TTGs are not really that different.

In 40k, if you play in a casual or semi-competitive meta, it's quite possible to have fun (and win) without being uber-competitive or investing countless hours, but not so if your meta is very competitive. But again, that's not really different than any other game.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Mantorok wrote:
I feel that's fair.
However, GW has established that AoS doesn't require points values.
They WANT you to come up with your own system to manage play.
That way the onus is on the player to determine whether a army list is broken or cheese, and to choose opponents accordingly.

And that's a terrible, terrible idea that can never, ever work.
Many (possibly even most) players don't have the capacity to figure out how much every bloody model is worth points-wise.
It's not a gameplay design decision or another way of playing, it's a MISTAKE and that's how it should be treated.

I disagree. AoS is remarkably easy to just grab a bunch of models, eyeball it, and wing it. The game is pretty fun, again, as long as one person isn't disproportionately competitive as compared to the other person. It will work fine if both people are quite competitive, and work fine if both people are quite casual, and poorly if you match the two up.

But again, that's the case for pretty much every game; someone who only wants to spend 30 hours a year playing a game is never going to do well against someone who spends 1000 hours a year playing.

Crash,
The rest of my post wasn't filler, it was supporting points for my answer. Just like your personal experience wasn't filler, but supporting reasoning for why you disagreed with it being a good reason. It's different kinds of support, yours being purely anecdotal while mine was a comment on historical and modern competitive games, but you can't call mine filler without suggesting your own is the same.

As for your second point, you played CoD. Most online games have a similar matchmaking system, which is very loose. Level 1 players are matched with any other players of various levels. You can play local matches, but the vast majority play online in random matches. Sometimes this results in a negative play experience (elo hell in LoL for example) but these games remain extremely popular.
So no, your second point is incorrect. That is not why it's successful, and your feelings about it being terrible are moot.
You can feel it's a mistake to defend competitive games, but it's just a feeling. One you've failed to defend with anything other than " I strongly disagree".

I never claimed you said anything about the pay to win model ever, but that is the current model of 40k. It's a way for a competitive game to ignore the advantage experienced players have, and one 40k embraced. Is this a good system?

You can also introduce so much randomness that player skill becomes minimal to give new players something. 40k used to embrace this system but seems to be moving to pay to win instead. I personally don't like that much randomness, but I can't argue that it isn't viable.

Fluff and story: 10/10, would Purge the Xeno and Burn the Heretic again.

Actual gameplay? 3/10. The game is barely functional out of the box.

Akiasura wrote:
Crash,
The rest of my post wasn't filler, it was supporting points for my answer. Just like your personal experience wasn't filler, but supporting reasoning for why you disagreed with it being a good reason. It's different kinds of support, yours being purely anecdotal while mine was a comment on historical and modern competitive games, but you can't call mine filler without suggesting your own is the same.

As for your second point, you played CoD. Most online games have a similar matchmaking system, which is very loose. Level 1 players are matched with any other players of various levels. You can play local matches, but the vast majority play online in random matches. Sometimes this results in a negative play experience (elo hell in LoL for example) but these games remain extremely popular.
So no, your second point is incorrect. That is not why it's successful, and your feelings about it being terrible are moot.
You can feel it's a mistake to defend competitive games, but it's just a feeling. One you've failed to defend with anything other than " I strongly disagree".

I never claimed you said anything about the pay to win model ever, but that is the current model of 40k. It's a way for a competitive game to ignore the advantage experienced players have, and one 40k embraced. Is this a good system?

You can also introduce so much randomness that player skill becomes minimal to give new players something. 40k used to embrace this system but seems to be moving to pay to win instead. I personally don't like that much randomness, but I can't argue that it isn't viable.

LOL, 40k is not pay to win...