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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to go on a leg and call you are being sorely mistaken, kan, in both points you make.
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard. Only by making mental gymnastics you could say that, not even resorting to rules lawyering could serve because the rules said they knew the spell all along.

Thank you for making my point.

It only states that on the unit's warscrolls.
It could have been solved early on by saying something to the effect of "Death Wizards have the ability to Summon units from the Death faction. Consult the Warscrolls for Death faction units to see what units can be summoned." being present on the Wizards' warscrolls.


Editor's note:
The way I stated we played it? That was during the first few months of Age of Sigmar. Before we ever saw any FAQs or tournament stuff. The way we played it came after we had a certain group of players continuously taking combinations that people were posting online as "gamebreaking" for the express purpose of trying to drive new players out of the community.

You're not making a point, you're just rambling needlessly, They were under no obligation to make that just for the sake of satisfying your poor comprehension.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to go on a leg and call you are being sorely mistaken, kan, in both points you make.
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard. Only by making mental gymnastics you could say that, not even resorting to rules lawyering could serve because the rules said they knew the spell all along.

Thank you for making my point.

It only states that on the unit's warscrolls.
It could have been solved early on by saying something to the effect of "Death Wizards have the ability to Summon units from the Death faction. Consult the Warscrolls for Death faction units to see what units can be summoned." being present on the Wizards' warscrolls.


Editor's note:
The way I stated we played it? That was during the first few months of Age of Sigmar. Before we ever saw any FAQs or tournament stuff. The way we played it came after we had a certain group of players continuously taking combinations that people were posting online as "gamebreaking" for the express purpose of trying to drive new players out of the community.

You're not making a point, you're just rambling needlessly, They were under no obligation to make that just for the sake of satisfying your poor comprehension.

And you're not adding anything to the discussion beyond making attacks.

Neither are you.

To begin with there's nothing to be said: death mages KNOW the summon spell. You're just whinning about them not listing the summon spell in their warscroll instead of the unit they summon. That's it.

Lord Kragan wrote:
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard.

It was on the warscroll, which meant that if you intended to summon that unit, you needed the warscroll. Early attempts at balancing AoS used warscroll limits, which meant that if you didn't bring the warscroll as part of your army, you didn't have the spell. The early debates were largely about whether the warscroll was part of your army if you fielded 0 units or if you needed at least one.

It feels a bit pedantic to argue over a rule the FAQ has now cleared up.

Pedantic or not, it is revisionist history to pretend that there was never any debate about a rule that needed to be clarified via a FAQ.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Pedantic or not, it is revisionist history to pretend that there was never any debate about a rule that needed to be clarified via a FAQ.

It's off topic, though. Maybe create a new thread for it?

 Mangod wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Pedantic or not, it is revisionist history to pretend that there was never any debate about a rule that needed to be clarified via a FAQ.

It's off topic, though. Maybe create a new thread for it?

Nah. That tangent's over with. It got FAQ'd now. I'm glad.

We can now go back to arguing why points weren't included on release and how points fixed every single problem with Age of Sigmar/how horribly written Age of Sigmar and all GW games are or whatever.


Points or not, I hope the people who enjoy AoS are still enjoying it. I hope the people who didn't enjoy it are finding games they enjoy instead.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard.

It was on the warscroll, which meant that if you intended to summon that unit, you needed the warscroll. Early attempts at balancing AoS used warscroll limits, which meant that if you didn't bring the warscroll as part of your army, you didn't have the spell. The early debates were largely about whether the warscroll was part of your army if you fielded 0 units or if you needed at least one.

Of course, the core rules of Age of Sigmar tell you to show up with a bunch of stuff, deploy some of it and keep the rest aside unless the fates (or something like that) dictate they be brought on. The simple act of showing up with a unit of Skellingtons means you have their Warscroll. Should you choose not to deploy them and instead hold them in reserve... well, you still had the Warscroll. Always though the "you don't have access to the Warscroll" argument ran counter to the core rules. Turns out I was right.

The only legit argument I ever saw was around whether you could summon in specific models that had previously died or if you could only summon in units you'd showed up with a started with "in reserve". As an example... I show up with Nagash and 10 Skeletons. Nagash casts a summon spell and summons the 10 Skeletons. They then are killed and removed as casualties. Can I summon more? I don't have any more Skeletons in my "reserve pool". I only have the ones that died and were removed. I always read the rules as saying that if you wanted to be able to summon two units of Skeletons over the course of a game that you needed to show up with two units of Skeletons in reserve. Not that it really matters in a Matched Play context where you have reserve points, but it matters ENORMOUSLY in an Open Play game where you're basing your deployment on what your opponent brought with him... not just what he deployed. Seeing 5 units of Skeletons "in reserve" changes my deployment more than seeing 1 unit.

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance.

My main game is Warmachine. And its generally (and rightly, IMO) regarded as one of the tightest, most well-written, and competitively designed games out there.

And I’ve had plenty one-sided massacres with it. There are plenty hard match ups, and unwinnable ones. Done it, and been on the receiving end of it. One of my last games in Mk2 had me playing my Khador versus a mate’s Cryx force. In the space of a single turn, I utterly annihilated his army with a combination of Winter Guard infantry blunderbuss sprays literally clearing half the board on one side, and my greylord Outrider ‘murder ponies’ clearing out the other half of the board. My mate didn’t have a chance, despite his list being comprised of some of the toughest, and nastiest infantry in the game (Banes). And equal points. I guess since it was a points based game, it was entirely down to me ‘completely outplaying him’ and no other factors. Or being frank, was it to do with the fact that I had simply hard-countered him with one of the afore mentioned hard match ups, and there was no other possible outcome from his perspective? Is it someone’s ‘fault’ or is it simply the consequence of a very limited medium (ie tabletop wargames) and that, basically, one sided massacres are simply a thing that happens that we all have to endure and deal with.

All your anecdote proves is that you didn’t learn from the process. This kind of play can, and does work. I will attest to that. We’ve been playing Flames of War like this- with no points - for three years, and have yet to have a one sided massacre.

You don’t need to know every unit in the game-you start small, and you build up. You don’t need to play a kajillion games either. You play what’s in front of you. Have some reinforcements to one side, just in case. If it is very obviously one sided, just reset it, and adjust as required. Its not hard. I mean, I assume you’re a smart guy. You can ‘read’ a units stats, right? And get a 'gut'!feeling for how they’re likely to perform? You probably do this in all your games. As I do in mine. You take it from there. And It is ‘ready to play’ today. You just need to approach it with a different perspective from what you insist on.

Trial and error is absolutely fine, and lets be fair – it’s a part of every wargame. If you don't want trial and error, you picked the wrong hobby! Unless you are the kind of person who only wants to play a single list all the time in a game after its been ‘solved’ so you don’t have to think, so you can download a netlist and have it hold your hand while it goes and plays your games for you. I mean, what you scoff at – trial and error, negotiation and a long series of unbalanced games before you see balance – I see almost no real difference in mist of my games of Warmachine or Infinity. Take a new caster/unit/synergy, or whatever, you,listbuild and and you need to get table time with it before you can see ‘how’ it plays, what it does well against (and what it doesn’t!), what does well against it (and how to mitigate it!) and ‘how’ to get as much as you can out of it, because theorymachine only goes so far. You could almost call this ‘trial and error’. There is every chance you will take it into one of the dozens of hard match ups like I described above and come away after three hours feeling all frustrated, see no results, and feel like all you’ve done is bang your head off a wall for three hours, and see the whole thing as an unbalanced mess before things start to click and you start to see all the pieces starting to come together. This can take dozens and dozens of games to 'git gud'. But I guess that’s OK, because ‘points’, and ‘but it’s a game about skillz!!!1!’ while the exact same situation with ‘no points’ in AOS is proof it's somehow terrible and unplayable. Ironic, really. Both approaches are learned skill sets.

In fact, I will go further and say when you are first learning a game, and first ‘exploring’ it – that’s when you have your most fun in your games, and NOT when the game been ‘solved’. When a game is new to you -that’s when everything is new, exciting and great. New models, units, faction, tactics, match ups and ways to play! Losing isn’t that big a deal. You Get on with it! Its all new ground. There are so many things to do, so many things to unlock, so many things to experience and see and try out! Literally, its entirely about ‘trial and error’ but its all good! When a game is ‘solved’, all you are doing is retracing old ground. You are not growing as a gamer. You are not learning anything. You are re-enacting. You are simply replaying the same game, over and over again. Like that guy who only ever watched the 2015 UEFA Cup final, over and over again. There is so much more out there. The secret , I find, is to always try to keep your games at the ‘new and exciting’ phase. The second they’re solved, the second that ‘trial and error’ stops being a thing, while its all comfortable safe and familiar, is the second you’ve stopped moving and started to stagnate. Your just start being uncreative. Ultimately, this leads to burnout and hobby apathy. Personally, I find the narrative and DIY approach that AOS tries to push (even though I prefer other games with this approach) is to be commended- it is fantastic for keeping things at the new and exciting phase, because there is always something new to try out because it makes the game ‘yours’.

 Kriswall wrote:
MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.

Aos had a poor launch for a lot of reasons, many of which can get laid at the door of gw and their handling of the game, its predecessor, and the community. The community itself however is not without blame either. MOST people never really gave it a shot, to be fair. You say people didn't want that, I'd argue that that it's not that simple - MOST people think they didn't want that. MOST people are conditioned to think they don't want that because all they know is something else. MOST people are stuck in a box, and are conditioned into only accepting one dogmatic method of playing wargames, can't envision anything else and view anything else as heresy. For most people, if you introduce them to this way of play, show them it working in practice (and I have done this) and sell it as a positive, empowering way of paying wargames, a lot of people will get on board, and will, even if they don't play that way, recognise its value. It's the one thing I like about aos in how it's a lot of people's first experience of 'real' narrative and diy gaming, and I personally see that as a positive, even if aos isn't all that and a bag of chips.

I don't exalt things often...but damn. That's exalt-worthy.

Deadnight wrote:
My main game is Warmachine. And its generally (and rightly, IMO) regarded as one of the tightest, most well-written, and competitively designed games out there.

Warmachine also seems designed for combo based decisive victory, not two forces duking it out over the course of 5+ turns. I've also played Warmachine. I can't remember many games that came down to two models fighting each other. Most end in relatively one-sided massacres.

And I’ve had plenty one-sided massacres with it. There are plenty hard match ups, and unwinnable ones. Done it, and been on the receiving end of it. One of my last games in Mk2 had me playing my Khador versus a mate’s Cryx force. In the space of a single turn, I utterly annihilated his army with a combination of Winter Guard infantry blunderbuss sprays literally clearing half the board on one side, and my greylord Outrider ‘murder ponies’ clearing out the other half of the board. My mate didn’t have a chance, despite his list being comprised of some of the toughest, and nastiest infantry in the game (Banes). And equal points. I guess since it was a points based game, it was entirely down to me ‘completely outplaying him’ and no other factors. Or being frank, was it to do with the fact that I had simply hard-countered him with one of the afore mentioned hard match ups, and there was no other possible outcome from his perspective? Is it someone’s ‘fault’ or is it simply the consequence of a very limited medium (ie tabletop wargames) and that, basically, one sided massacres are simply a thing that happens that we all have to endure and deal with.

There is a huge difference between using a game's built in list building and balancing mechanisms to actively try for a one-sided massacre and sort of negotiating and guesstimating and inadvertently coming up with a one-sided massacre. Was the win because one player played better or because they'd mutually screwed up the balance by guessing wrong on what made for a fair match up? We'll never know.

All your anecdote proves is that you didn’t learn from the process. This kind of play can, and does work. I will attest to that. We’ve been playing Flames of War like this- with no points - for three years, and have yet to have a one sided massacre.

I'm happy for you. I don't know anything about Flames of War, so can't comment. The models simply don't appeal to me.

Trial and error is absolutely fine, and lets be fair – it’s a part of every wargame. If you don't want trial and error, you picked the wrong hobby! Unless you are the kind of person who only wants to play a single list all the time in a game after its been ‘solved’ so you don’t have to think, so you can download a netlist and have it hold your hand while it goes and plays your games for you. I mean, what you scoff at – trial and error, negotiation and a long series of unbalanced games before you see balance – I see almost no real difference in mist of my games of Warmachine or Infinity. Take a new caster/unit/synergy, or whatever, you,listbuild and and you need to get table time with it before you can see ‘how’ it plays, what it does well against (and what it doesn’t!), what does well against it (and how to mitigate it!) and ‘how’ to get as much as you can out of it, because theorymachine only goes so far. You could almost call this ‘trial and error’. There is every chance you will take it into one of the dozens of hard match ups like I described above and come away after three hours feeling all frustrated, see no results, and feel like all you’ve done is bang your head off a wall for three hours, and see the whole thing as an unbalanced mess before things start to click and you start to see all the pieces starting to come together. This can take dozens and dozens of games to 'git gud'. But I guess that’s OK, because ‘points’, and ‘but it’s a game about skillz!!!1!’ while the exact same situation with ‘no points’ in AOS is proof it's somehow terrible and unplayable. Ironic, really. Both approaches are learned skill sets.

When I play X-Wing, I build a 100 point list and then see how it works. If I get trounced, it's either because I picked a bad combination of abilities that don't work well together or because I played poorly. It's never going to be because I brought only 3 TIE Fighters when 5 would have been more balanced. I don't mind playing a series of games to learn the how to play better and which units work best for me. I don't like the idea that I have to also decide if the armies are THEORETICALLY balanced. In your example above, say you build a list, play a bunch of hard games, nothing clicks, so you start adding models. Then something clicks. You 'git gud'. You have to start taking away models to maintain balance. How do you know what the right number of models is to take away? What sort of handicap do you give yourself? If you take away models and lose is it because you took away too many or because you played poorly? Again, we'll never know because we don't even have a theoretical balancing mechanism to compare against.

In fact, I will go further and say when you are first learning a game, and first ‘exploring’ it – that’s when you have your most fun in your games, and NOT when the game been ‘solved’. When a game is new to you -that’s when everything is new, exciting and great. New models, units, faction, tactics, match ups and ways to play! Losing isn’t that big a deal. You Get on with it! Its all new ground. There are so many things to do, so many things to unlock, so many things to experience and see and try out! Literally, its entirely about ‘trial and error’ but its all good! When a game is ‘solved’, all you are doing is retracing old ground. You are not growing as a gamer. You are not learning anything. You are re-enacting. You are simply replaying the same game, over and over again.

I respectfully disagree. I prefer the mastery that comes with knowing a game well versus the uncertainty associated with learning something new. To use a World of Warcraft analogy, it seems like you prefer questing to end game raiding. I prefer the end game. Questing is a burden to be endured.

Like that guy who only ever watched the 2015 UEFA Cup final, over and over again. There is so much more out there. The secret , I find, is to always try to keep your games at the ‘new and exciting’ phase. The second they’re solved, the second that ‘trial and error’ stops being a thing, while its all comfortable safe and familiar, is the second you’ve stopped moving and started to stagnate. Your just start being uncreative. Ultimately, this leads to burnout and hobby apathy.

Sounds like you're speaking about your own reactions. Different people have different thresholds for when things feel stagnated. I have friends who've maintained the same army for literally decades. I have others who need something new every three months or they go mad. "Hobby ADD" is definitely a thing, but it doesn't affect everyone equally.

It sounds like you need the new and exciting. I don't. I work long hours and spend most of my free time NOT participating in the table top gaming hobby. The only reason I post so much here is that work gets slow quite often and this is a great diversion. I actively DON'T want constant new and exciting things. I play games when I can against who I can. I simply don't have the time or the desire to both learn to be a good player AND learn to balance the games. I expect a certain amount of inherent systemic balance with my role being to learn to be a good player and make good choices during list building.

Well put, Kriswall :-)

 Kriswall wrote:

Warmachine also seems designed for combo based decisive victory, not two forces duking it out over the course of 5+ turns. I've also played Warmachine. I can't remember many games that came down to two models fighting each other. Most end in relatively one-sided massacres.

Most of my games of Warmachine have ended with caster assassination, often with half of the units still on the board. I've had one turn assassinations where I didn't even get to play the game and the only casualty was my caster.

There is a huge difference between using a game's built in list building and balancing mechanisms to actively try for a one-sided massacre and sort of negotiating and guesstimating and inadvertently coming up with a one-sided massacre.

I believe the difference is between building a list to win and building a list to provide an enjoyable gaming experience. The former can resemble the latter when both players are on the same page - but that's the only time the former works at all, while building a list for both player's enjoyment always produces a good game.

I respectfully disagree. I prefer the mastery that comes with knowing a game well versus the uncertainty associated with learning something new. To use a World of Warcraft analogy, it seems like you prefer questing to end game raiding. I prefer the end game. Questing is a burden to be endured.

Seeking mastery is more fun than having achieved it. Exercising your mastery is a matter of rout patterns played out in a simplistic flow chart, while seeking mastery involves figuring out the existence of the flow chart and iterating on it until you've found the final, best version. And when the flow chart is simple enough, it can simply be given to someone who can enjoy the benefits of mastery (winning) without putting in the work. The unfortunately reality of a mature game system is that a large majority of the players end up just following flow charts that the community created over many years. It's why these games must have new editions and constant upgrades - it keeps the community from getting stagnant after it solves the mastery problem.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

There is a huge difference between using a game's built in list building and balancing mechanisms to actively try for a one-sided massacre and sort of negotiating and guesstimating and inadvertently coming up with a one-sided massacre.

I believe the difference is between building a list to win and building a list to provide an enjoyable gaming experience. The former can resemble the latter when both players are on the same page - but that's the only time the former works at all, while building a list for both player's enjoyment always produces a good game.

I think this might actually be the core of the conflict here. If I'm playing a competitive game, which I'm defining as any game with a clear winner and a clear loser, I want to win. I hope the other person has fun, and if they don't we'll figure out why and try to 'correct course', but winning is the first priority. If I'm looking to simply have fun with my friends, I'll play one of any number of cooperative games, which I'm defining as any game where the players win or lose as a team and a loss can still be a 'win' if everyone enjoys the process. This is why Descent (with the Road to Legend App), Mansions of Madness, Zombicide, etc. are on my gaming shelf. Not everybody likes competitive games. I get that. But for those that do, I'll always bring my A game.

It sounds very much like some people are trying to take a competitive game, ignore the winner/loser mechanic and simply roll dice while charging at each other - acting out a narrative battle. That's awesome. I just think those people are in the minority. I think most players who play competitive games DO care about who wins and would generally prefer to A. win and B. do everything reasonable (not WAAC!) they can to be the winner.

Core Age of Sigmar lives somewhere between competitive and cooperative. It's clearly a competitive game. There is a clear winner and a clear loser. HOWEVER, Games Workshop seems to really want to it to be treated more like a cooperative game, where two players show up and sort of negotiate, drink some beers, eat some pretzels, throw some dice and specifically NOT care about who wins or loses, because hey... it's all about having fun, right? Age of Sigmar isn't Dungeons and Dragons. A narrative is fine, but at it's core it's a contest between (usually) two players with a clear winner and a clear loser at the end. When the narrative takes over, the competitive core suffers and people who enjoy competitive games will naturally walk away.

That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can. The game is one where you see who is better. The story and narrative are secondary if non existent things to care about. The mechanics, the math, the builds, those are the priority.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair. The story and narrative are primary. Forces are not created to be overbearing but reflective of the stories. The narrative, both sides being relatively well matched, and an enjoyable game take priority over who wins (though of course you are still trying to win, you just aren't putting that as the #1 facet of the game)

The root of many arguments I find.

Player A and Player B can never really coexist happily in the same space.

Well no, I mean kinda. I think that Warhammer (all varieties) is decidedly a competitive game, because it's "me vs. you". However, I think the issue is that it's intended to be very laid back competitive, not hardcore cutthroat (i.e. WAAC) style. I get the impression from GW that you are still meant to try and win, but you're meant to do so in a way that still adheres to the narrative and background material, not so much cooperative (like, I doubt you are meant to do stupid things in game just because, although I've seen it happen e.g. charging something you know you won't likely win, just because you have a Chaos Lord or something who won't back down from the fight). It's not so much trying to be a cooperative game, but there's no expectation on GW's end that you are going to push it to the extreme and degenerate the game into Math-hammer or statistics showing that Unit X is "proven" to be better than Unit Y, so stock up on Unit X and ignore Unit Y.

I think the problem is that many people seem to think competitive has only one setting, which is closer to WAAC (although even that's an extreme; I personally consider a true WAAC player to be essentially borderline cheating i.e. using dubious rules interpretations that could be correct, but likely isn't, and arguing until blue in the face that it is, or abusing the fact some rules are vague; basically a WAAC player is a powergamer + rules lawyer, what would be called a "munchkin" in D&D), and as a result they build "filth" lists that are designed to push the extreme of competitive. This is the issue.

For example, GW expects balanced armies on both sides; one or two may use a specific theme (e.g. all cavalry), but nothing too egregious, and overall a balance. A competitive player looks at what does the most damage/has the best survivability/etc. and builds a list that maxes out on those aspects, army background and composition be damned, while GW's expectation is that you are going to be more interested in fielding a "realistic" force even if that means taking, for example, a core of troops that aren't as good, because the core troops make up the bulk of the army.

If you look at any GW battle report, they are almost always very balanced forces. You almost never see just the most powerful units taken, you see a solid mix but the armies always look balanced and, more importantly, in tune with the background material of the faction.

 auticus wrote:
That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair.

The root of many arguments I find.

Game Style B is just so hard for someone who prefers A. It feels like you're saying "still try to win, but don't try too hard because we want to make sure that everyone has fun". It feels like a grade school lecture. "Timmy, I know you're the fastest kid in the 6th grade, but I need you to slow down and just run with everyone else. You can still come in first, but make sure you only beat the second place person by a few steps. We don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. Remember, all kids are above average and everyone deserves to be a winner." How is Timmy supposed to feel? Will he still want to race if he's not allowed to give it his all? Don't be surprised when Timmy throws a tantrum, says racing is stupid and joins the wrestling team. For him, racing IS stupid. It's not a challenge anymore. For him, the challenge of doing his best, doing better than everyone else is the rush.

 Kriswall wrote:

 auticus wrote:
That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair.

The root of many arguments I find.

Game Style B is just so hard for someone who prefers A. It feels like you're saying "still try to win, but don't try too hard because we want to make sure that everyone has fun". It feels like a grade school lecture. "Timmy, I know you're the fastest kid in the 6th grade, but I need you to slow down and just run with everyone else. You can still come in first, but make sure you only beat the second place person by a few steps. We don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. Remember, all kids are above average and everyone deserves to be a winner." How is Timmy supposed to feel? Will he still want to race if he's not allowed to give it his all? Don't be surprised when Timmy throws a tantrum, says racing is stupid and joins the wrestling team. For him, racing IS stupid. It's not a challenge anymore. For him, the challenge of doing his best, doing better than everyone else is the rush.

Wouldn't it be more like telling Timmy to save being the "fastest kid in 6th grade" for the racing competition, not during gym class? In other words, the Type A player can still be as competitive as possible, but at a tournament (or a tournament-esque practice game) not at a friendly game where it's just to have fun. As an example when I would play Warmachine, one of the things we often asked was if this was going to be a Steamroller (tournament) prep game or just for fun; if it was a Steamroller type game, it gets all the tournament stuff (two lists, timers, A-game, specifically asking your opponent to field/proxy X so you can test your list against it, etc.), but if it was for fun, then it might be okay to say well I really want to try this idea out and see how it works, and play more laid back and experiment with things that weren't hardcore competitive. As a factual example I once played a friend of mine, he was preparing for a tournament that weekend so specifically said he was going to bring epic Haley and a Stormwall (very powerful caster and warjack in MkII of Warmachine), and specifically asked me to field a tournament-level army because he wanted to see how his list performed. I later played someone I knew was not a competitive player and fielded mostly what they wanted/thought was cool, with only a cursory glance towards synergies. I created a list I was genuinely curious about how it played, and used it against him in a more laid back setting; the list wasn't really something I'd bring to a tournament, but some concepts and ideas from it I wanted to try out.

Why can't that work in Warhammer too? Tournament or a game to prepare for an upcoming tournament? Sure, expect all the "filth" in the world. Friendly game at a shop with someone who clearly doesn't have the same caliber list (generally not hard to see, or *gasp* to ask what sort of army they have)? Tone it down, bring something more balanced, maybe even try out something and see if it's viable so you can adapt your competitive gaming as a result.

I guess that doesn't really seem that weird to me, since it happens frequently in Warmachine, so I'm not sure why Warhammer has to be either or, and it's no way dude I'm fielding my filth tournament list regardless, get rekt scrub.

Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

Wayniac wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 auticus wrote:
That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair.

The root of many arguments I find.

Game Style B is just so hard for someone who prefers A. It feels like you're saying "still try to win, but don't try too hard because we want to make sure that everyone has fun". It feels like a grade school lecture. "Timmy, I know you're the fastest kid in the 6th grade, but I need you to slow down and just run with everyone else. You can still come in first, but make sure you only beat the second place person by a few steps. We don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. Remember, all kids are above average and everyone deserves to be a winner." How is Timmy supposed to feel? Will he still want to race if he's not allowed to give it his all? Don't be surprised when Timmy throws a tantrum, says racing is stupid and joins the wrestling team. For him, racing IS stupid. It's not a challenge anymore. For him, the challenge of doing his best, doing better than everyone else is the rush.

Wouldn't it be more like telling Timmy to save being the "fastest kid in 6th grade" for the racing competition, not during gym class?

That's not really how Timmy works. He either tries his hardest or he does something else. Which I think is why so many people walked away from Age of Sigmar. It's so wide open that "trying your hardest" results in some truly horrendous experiences. I don't think anybody wants that. But then, I also don't think that most people want to put in the free time and effort to fix it. I salute the PPC, Azry Comp, etc people, but I don't understand them. You're effectively working as an unpaid, freelance rules writer for GW. Why not just play a different game with more complete rules?

 auticus wrote:
That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can. The game is one where you see who is better. The story and narrative are secondary if non existent things to care about. The mechanics, the math, the builds, those are the priority.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair. The story and narrative are primary. Forces are not created to be overbearing but reflective of the stories. The narrative, both sides being relatively well matched, and an enjoyable game take priority over who wins (though of course you are still trying to win, you just aren't putting that as the #1 facet of the game)

The root of many arguments I find.

Player A and Player B can never really coexist happily in the same space.

Actually, I believe player A is a subset of player B. They want to create an enjoyable game for both players - it's just that they assume their opponent has the same singular idea of fun (competitive to win). I get the feeling that most of them wouldn't enjoy a game where they brought their competitive list and their opponent decided to bring a fluffy non-competitive list. Some players are jerks with low self esteem and don't mind trouncing others, but I think that most competitive players want a bit of a challenge to make their lists worth the effort. They want to win, but they want to win against a worthy opponent. It would almost be insulting to win against a non-competitive player (maybe more insulting to lose to one).

I think Player B is probably more fun to play against because they are tailoring their list to and with their opponent, whatever their opponent wants. If their opponent is competitive, Player B can be competitive (though perhaps not at high levels of competitiveness). If their opponent is experimental, fluffy, or silly, they can be experimental, fluffy, or silly. If Player B wants silly and his opponent wants competitive, perhaps a compromise can be reach where they play two games - one silly, one competitive.

But the competitive player only seeks one expression of the game, stubbornly so, and they quickly get frustrated with those who don't. And I think Player A gets frustrated with them taking this wide open, varied gaming experience and refusing to experience anything but a very small part of it - usually in the most bitter way possible. Have you ever seen a happy Warhammer competitive player who actually likes the game/faction they play?

I, personally, get tired of them complaining about the games and blaming everybody else - game designers, other players, rules, points - for why they aren't having as much fun as they think they deserve, and being the squeaky wheels, they inevitably steer the ship towards more competitive ventures (as with AoS and the GHB). AoS was fine without points, but they couldn't have fun their way and dammit, they are the one true stewards of miniature gaming and without them AoS would die and all of miniature gaming would die and the sun would die and everybody would be dead, so damn right AoS better release some points, mother fether.

Meanwhile, the non-competitive players are all like, I'm having fun. My group is having fun. We make it work. Hey, did you see the new Sylvaneth models? Man, I can think of a dozen different ways to paint and play them. Gives me all sorts of ideas for a new campaign. Next Friday, Jimmy is bring over his Fyreslayer army and... NO! YOU SHUT UP! says the competitive player. THERE ARE NO POINTS! YOU AREN'T HAVING FUN! WE ARE THE TRUE STEWARDS! OUR WORD IS LAW! BITCH, THE SUN WILL DIE!

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

 Sqorgar wrote:
But the competitive player only seeks one expression of the game, stubbornly so, and they quickly get frustrated with those who don't. And I think Player A gets frustrated with them taking this wide open, varied gaming experience and refusing to experience anything but a very small part of it - usually in the most bitter way possible. Have you ever seen a happy Warhammer competitive player who actually likes the game/faction they play?

Right. But to be fair, I've also met Type B players who refuse to play competitive at all, usually equating it with "netlisting" and deriding those who do so. I am genuinely curious why it's such a hard divide, why the Type A player can't try something new or fun that maybe isn't "the best", or why the Type B player can't understand that some people care less about the fluff/narrative and more about the game. Although I will admit, in my experience it's usually the Type A player who is the worst of the two, and derides anything other than their way as being bad, usually while insulting the Type B player for "playing badly". Usually, not always.

As i said, i think there can be a compromise, but it's hard to find mature enough people to know when to bring out the big guns, and when to have fun in a more low-key and less competitive environments.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

Why can't the casual player bring out the toned down/odd combination list against likeminded players, and crank it up/bring their hardcore cutthroat lists in a more competitive setting? Same answer: why should I/we have to accomodate someone else who clearly isn't gonna gel with our group?

 Mangod wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

Why can't the casual player bring out the toned down/odd combination list against likeminded players, and crank it up/bring their hardcore cutthroat lists in a more competitive setting? Same answer: why should I/we have to accomodate someone else who clearly isn't gonna gel with our group?

EXACTLY. The comment I keep seeing is that Type A players have some sort of obligation to tone down their game play and accommodate casual players. I RARELY hear of a Type A player saying that Type B players need to "man up" and "bring the thunder" to accommodate hardcore competition. Maybe it's because Type A players can just go to any number of tournaments or organized events to get their fix and respect that some people just don't like top level competitive play.

 Mangod wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

Why can't the casual player bring out the toned down/odd combination list against likeminded players, and crank it up/bring their hardcore cutthroat lists in a more competitive setting? Same answer: why should I/we have to accomodate someone else who clearly isn't gonna gel with our group?

Because usually the competitive player is the one who can ruin the other person's fun, so IMHO more of the responsibility needs to be put on them. The competitive player is typically the outlier, who is more likely to bring a cutthroat list against casual players, than vice versa. You normally don't find casual players going to tournaments, but far too often you find a competitive player showing up to a regular game night with a list designed for a tournament, with the intent to steamroll opponents.

Kriswall wrote:
It sounds like you need the new and exciting. I don't. I work long hours and spend most of my free time NOT participating in the table top gaming hobby. The only reason I post so much here is that work gets slow quite often and this is a great diversion. I actively DON'T want constant new and exciting things. I play games when I can against who I can. I simply don't have the time or the desire to both learn to be a good player AND learn to balance the games. I expect a certain amount of inherent systemic balance with my role being to learn to be a good player and make good choices during list building.

No, I've simply learned the value of new and exciting. I've burned out before with this hobby when I focused exclusively on the competitive. With both 40k and warmachine. I still enjoy all those things you do. I've just broadened my horizons. By accident. I fell in with a couple of crotchety old historical gamers after demoing them infinity. And frankly, learning to balance games and learning the art of 'gamebuilding' has done nothing but enhance my hobby for me.

I play pick up games, and diy/narrative. I also play competitive, and love me my tournaments, when I can get to them, I also work long hours, and frankly, in terms of hours spent, gaming is down there at the bottom of the list,I'm afraid. Alas, it happens when you get older! Too much crap to do!

Thing is, since I don't get to go gaming all that often, it's value increases as a result. I won't waste my limited gaming time playing when I can against who I can. That's 'settling for scraps'.i rather plan it. And play against people I know, and enjoy playing. To me, putting time and effort into my hobby is just something I do to make it worth my time. I've learned to enjoy the process for its own sake.

Kriswall wrote:
It sounds very much like some people are trying to take a competitive game, ignore the winner/loser mechanic and simply roll dice while charging at each other - acting out a narrative battle. That's awesome. I just think those people are in the minority. I think most players who play competitive games DO care about who wins and would generally prefer to A. win and B. do everything reasonable (not WAAC!) they can to be the winner.

Core Age of Sigmar lives somewhere between competitive and cooperative. It's clearly a competitive game. There is a clear winner and a clear loser. HOWEVER, Games Workshop seems to really want to it to be treated more like a cooperative game, where two players show up and sort of negotiate, drink some beers, eat some pretzels, throw some dice and specifically NOT care about who wins or loses, because hey... it's all about having fun, right? Age of Sigmar isn't Dungeons and Dragons. A narrative is fine, but at it's core it's a contest between (usually) two players with a clear winner and a clear loser at the end. When the narrative takes over, the competitive core suffers and people who enjoy competitive games will naturally walk away.

Why does the competition have to dominate? Insistence on this is where the block is.

I think it's more complicated than just Having a winner and a loser. Or cooperative and competitive. Winners and losers happen, the perspective shift is that it isn't the over riding goal. It's as important to bring the narrative to life. The trick is to realise that you can combine both. co-operative game building first, based on a mutual understanding rather than each player taking a 'blind' list against another 'blind' list. That's where the 'game building' comes into play, and there is no reason to see this as an either/or antagonistic action where it's me vs you. You are both responsible for both sides of the game, rather than each responsible for one half.

There isn't no reason thst after this fact, that you can't have a go. It's a Wargame. The idea is to go out and try to beat the other guy after all. 'Simply rolling dice and charging at each other' is a very short sighted and rather condascending view of an alternative way of playing. Please, don't be so dismissive. Narrative gaming is a lot more empowering than this.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

Why can't the casual player bring out the toned down/odd combination list against likeminded players, and crank it up/bring their hardcore cutthroat lists in a more competitive setting? Same answer: why should I/we have to accomodate someone else who clearly isn't gonna gel with our group?

EXACTLY. The comment I keep seeing is that Type A players have some sort of obligation to tone down their game play and accommodate casual players. I RARELY hear of a Type A player saying that Type B players need to "man up" and "bring the thunder" to accommodate hardcore competition. Maybe it's because Type A players can just go to any number of tournaments or organized events to get their fix and respect that some people just don't like top level competitive play.

I think it's mainly because the Type A player has an outlet for their desire, i.e. tournament events. The Type B player usually doesn't have "narrative events" or sometimes even campaigns, and those things are generally advertised as "all comers" so you can still attract the Type A player who shows up with a power list to a casual game.

Let me see if I can explain better. If the game shop advertises a tournament, it can reasonably be expected that it's going to be very competitive (that's basically the definition of a tournament). The competitive players have a reason to go to the event, the casual ones don't (they can, but would reasonably not expect to do well because they're casual players). So a tournament excludes Type B (they won't sign up because it's a tournament and not for them) and includes/encourages Type A (it's a tournament, they want to play competitively).

If the game shop advertises a campaign, or a league, or even just regular old "Warhammer Night", both kinds of players show up, and you run into the personality clash. There is no dedicated event, typically, for Type Bs (since many Type As will join campaigns or leagues with the express intention to "crush" the opposition), while Type As get their own dedicated type of exhibition (i.e. tournaments). Therefore I feel more of the onus is on Type A to play accordingly, because they get the freedom to do so. A Type A who ONLY wants to play competitive games can more often than not find other Type As to group with on game nights, and have tournaments where it's very unlikely they'll run into a Type B. A Type B who NEVER want to play competitive games is much more restricted in what they can do, because they always have the chance to run into Type A, since there's nothing stopping a Type A from showing up to a regular game with a powerlist or joining a league and running a powerlist, while a Type B will look at an upcoming tournament and likely choose not to attend because it doesn't suit them, thereby removing themselves entirely from the equation; you could reasonably expect to see a majority of Type A players at a tournament, but a league or campaign you could see Type A or Type B in equal measures.

Therefore, I feel that Type A needs to be the one to adjust, because Type A can more readily change than Type B. Speaking as a Type A player in Warmachine (can't speak for Warhammer) I had no problem playing competitive when needed or casual when I wanted a change or played someone casual; on the contrary it was next to impossible to expect a Type B player to "man up" and bring a power list, so I felt more responsible for ensuring a fun game since I was the one who was more comfortable with changing my way of playing. I could have (and did for a bit) gone around crushing "scrubs" and then telling them to suck it up when they asked me to not keep using the power combos (and this was still the time of "play like you've got a pair" Warmachine), but then nobody would have fun.

Wayniac wrote:
Right. But to be fair, I've also met Type B players who refuse to play competitive at all, usually equating it with "netlisting" and deriding those who do so.

Once bitten, twice shy? People who have had bad experiences don't tend to want to repeat them.

I am genuinely curious why it's such a hard divide, why the Type A player can't try something new or fun that maybe isn't "the best", or why the Type B player can't understand that some people care less about the fluff/narrative and more about the game. Although I will admit, in my experience it's usually the Type A player who is the worst of the two, and derides anything other than their way as being bad, usually while insulting the Type B player for "playing badly". Usually, not always.

We've seen exactly that sentiment repeated in this very thread from multiple people.

I think Type B players understand competitive players, and on occasion can enjoy their company, but it has a high potential to create unfun games, which is the very thing Type B players actively work against. If the type B player actively want to have an enjoyable gaming experience, competitive gamers would be the last person you would seek out without some assurances.