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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Quite the opposite actually. Im the only one there who ISNT working fulltime(Barring the Teens but they are a minority there)
I mean yeah, I have more forgeworld, but that came from my graduation money I spent.

That doesn't answer the question. A lot of people work. All that means is you have more spare money to spend than they do. Do you pay rent? Do you pay hydro? Do you pay insurance? How do you know the money they earn doesn't have to go and help out the family and therefore don't have the spare money like you do?

Also what does graduation money mean?

Davor wrote:
Why are we making excuses to prove our manhood with plastic toy soldiers? Especially in a game that is so unbalanced and not fair we need to prove something?

Sit down, ready your timer and show me you got a pair and play chess?
Games with a nod of the head to war games have been around for centuries.
Proving manhood that would be the wrong game, having a brain for tactics and strategy is a different matter.
This is still competition, just lacking the emphasis on physical aspects.
You cheapen the game, or shall I state that the sports you quote are mindless efforts?
I would suspect many of us have physical hobbies, sometimes you want to challenge the mind a wee bit more though..
40k does prove to be a challenge to derive any true competitive play especially when people get upset with doing your best.

 Talizvar wrote:

Davor wrote:
Why are we making excuses to prove our manhood with plastic toy soldiers? Especially in a game that is so unbalanced and not fair we need to prove something?

Sit down, ready your timer and show me you got a pair and play chess?

I suck at chess. You wouldn't have fun playing me.

Games with a nod of the head to war games have been around for centuries.

I am sure they are more balanced than 40K.

Proving manhood that would be the wrong game, having a brain for tactics and strategy is a different matter.

Nope same thing. For a lot of people they can't do stuff psychically so they use their brains. Still the same thing. They have to prove they are better than someone else.

This is still competition, just lacking the emphasis on physical aspects.

Yes a competition where the rules/codices are not balanced and fair. Chess is balanced. Chess is fair. 40K is not.

You cheapen the game, or shall I state that the sports you quote are mindless efforts?

Why? Do I say you cheapen the game because you have to bring your best in an unbalanced, unfair game? Mindless efforts? Let's go on the street and do a poll and start telling non geeks and nerds how playing with toy soldiers is to challenge the mind? I am sure a lot of those people would say that is wasted effort, time and money. So now because someone disagrees instead of coming up with a counter we have to start now with name calling or shaming? Waste efforts? I am sure for many people physical sports is not wasted efforts. Sadly I am not one of them.

I would suspect many of us have physical hobbies, sometimes you want to challenge the mind a wee bit more though..

So true. thing is when you want to challenge the mind, 40K is not it. Again how can someone claim a challenge when they play an "easy" army and claim victory over someone who plays a "difficult" army? Where is the challenge in that? That is where you have Chess. Even checkers. 40K has become "Pew pew, I shot you!" "No you didn't" "YES I DID!" "NO YOU DIDN'T. On page 55 this rule go to page 104 to see how this effects the rule, go on that book on page 43 the go back to the main rule book on page 8 and you will see I missed." Well I guess you are correct. I will give you that. That would challenge the mind.

40k does prove to be a challenge to derive any true competitive play especially when people get upset with doing your best.

Yes because it's unbalanced and not pointed correctly. In chess, both sides play by the same rules. In sports, both sides play by the same rules. In poker, both sides play by the same rules. In 40K, both sides don't play by the same rules. At least in sports everything is in the same currency when playing by a cap. In 40K when playing by a cap, the currency are not balanced or the same so, it's not a level playing field.

Davor wrote:
Yes because it's unbalanced and not pointed correctly. In chess, both sides play by the same rules. In sports, both sides play by the same rules. In poker, both sides play by the same rules. In 40K, both sides don't play by the same rules. At least in sports everything is in the same currency when playing by a cap. In 40K when playing by a cap, the currency are not balanced or the same so, it's not a level playing field.

We could argue some teams can better "pay to win" than others.
40k we have the BRB and can buy any codex we want right?
So I can play any army you can right?
We ARE playing to the same rules, your choice if you like an army composition less than optimal.

Here is the kicker:
A game to be competitive does not have to be balanced (grab the best the meta allows and have at it).
You pick the best the game has to offer, playing the type of strategy that "wins" while keeping in mind others could pick the same.

But for games to be "fun" (pick the army you like) they need to be balanced.
It is terribly easy to play a "balanced" game when the composition is the same for both sides.
I suspect many would be unhappy playing only marines with different colors and no other difference.
Composing balanced armies is breaking components into elements of rock-paper-scissors.
Combinations of strengths and weaknesses.
Troops die to cavalry, artillery dies to mêlée, etc.
Food for thought here: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/how-far-should-you-go-to-win
Balance and "matchup charts" where some armies that lose "every time" signal the game designer "why should anyone bother with that?".:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/game-balance-and-yomi

The game is fair from a competitive viewpoint: you can field anything I can.
It is not fun when your much loved Sisters of Battle struggle mightily with the Eldar with the same points cost never mind the long overdue model updates.

 Stevefamine wrote:
At least the Pony phase is finished

You watch what you type, buddy. Some of us still fly the flag here on Dakka. #MLP4Life #TwilightSparkle2016

As for OP, I do think that if they are offering a cash prize and haven't really set any army building limits beyond a maximum points value then whatever fits into that framework is fair game. I think that the onus is on the TO to ensure that they place army limits which the group finds reasonable and fair if they want to limit peoples army choices, rather than some "unwritten rules" which people will expect you to abide by.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:

PourSpelur wrote:
Both parties are wrong. Casual Carl was wrong because he tried to make a league a casual league without telling anyone. Bitching about lists doesn't fix the problem. Calmly explaining the expectations before the league begins does.
Stomping Steve was wrong for doubling down on the "money involved, letter of the law" argument. It's fully within the rules for me to sound an air horn continually during your movement phase. It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.

40k is a permissive rule set. Stomping Steve has permission to bring stompers. You need permission to break my mother's heart.

He said he'd call me

The disconnect here is that "bring your best" is a bastardisation of "bringing your best game".

Yes you can bring the most unbalanced cheese you can muster (afford even) but that is gaming the system the most.

The "best" that a player brings is her/his ability to play the game. By bringing the known unbalanced list you are effectively reducing the level you need to compete at to win.

Bringing your best the OP's example was not.

You curb-stomped a bunch of casuals and want us to validate your feels.

Yes, you can technically bring whatever you want. However, you also have to deal with the fall out of a bunch of players that might turn you down on the next 'Open Night".

However, the majority of the blame belongs on the shoulders of the TO, in this instance. He should known his players wanted a fluffier event and should have stated this in the tournament announcement/rules.

 notprop wrote:
The disconnect here is that "bring your best" is a bastardisation of "bringing your best game".
Yes you can bring the most unbalanced cheese you can muster (afford even) but that is gaming the system the most.
The "best" that a player brings is her/his ability to play the game. By bringing the known unbalanced list you are effectively reducing the level you need to compete at to win.
Bringing your best the OP's example was not.

To compete is to bring the best available to you.
Of course a game IS gaming the system (you do not see this in organized sports at all that is mainstream?).
Skill, allowable equipment...
Where do you draw the line where good or optimal leads to cheese?
Your best is all things that the rules allow, period.

I am so sick and tired of hearing "I play casual" or about the super fluffy bunny list: can you at least give the impression you are trying to put up a fight?
It IS a wargame after all.
I don't care if you or I win or lose as long as we tried our best (even better if it is a close game), please tell me there is nothing wrong with that?

It would be a letdown for an Eldar player to take-on CSM in a supposed competition the way their rules stand now (never mind the drumming the CSM player would take).
To play in a "League" is to have some understanding of playing at a similar power level.
People are very hung-up on the concept that "every army (they have) MUST be viable" when we know darn-well they are not.
Tau and Eldar are the obvious leaders in this but I guess no-one wants to play a league of only those two armies.
Since GW does not take ownership, anyone setting up a league really needs to set down some rules to try to get the various armies to the same power level or it just will not work.

I feel it is a fallacy to expect players to adjust their army lists to some nebulous level.
Anyone who plays with or against these armies know where the problems are for each army to some degree and can adjust (still talking about organizer responsibility here).
I think then the true competition can be seen as players adjust to these rules and have to choose more carefully.
It is still the least random element part of the game where the player has the most control so you will not eradicate carefully selected lists.
I am an advocate of just taking away certain elements (1 or two special rules) that make particular units or formations OP.

No rules or agreements laid down will save a player from selecting all vanilla troops or some strange points wasting choices.
Lazy, thoughtless efforts not a competition make.
Unless you want to hand out participation trophies, at some point people need to take some responsibility for what they field in a "competition".
Starting out in chess was BRUTAL till I got to figure out / read-up the various starting moves and their counters and then other follow-up moves.
Like with the 40k armies, each unit has an optimal method of attack and it is a matter of getting everything into position at the right time.
I think that is why so many people (and rules specifically manage) the first turn "alphastrike" since positioning with timing is hard to do.

If certain models are good at all things, strategy really does not matter much.

That is the main issue for me.

We know that not all armies are viable.

So to have a good game we have to collect and chase what is currently good to have a good game. And then when their rules start to decline we need to dump them and chase the next good army to have a good game.

Talizvar wrote:

Davor wrote:
Yes because it's unbalanced and not pointed correctly. In chess, both sides play by the same rules. In sports, both sides play by the same rules. In poker, both sides play by the same rules. In 40K, both sides don't play by the same rules. At least in sports everything is in the same currency when playing by a cap. In 40K when playing by a cap, the currency are not balanced or the same so, it's not a level playing field.

We could argue some teams can better "pay to win" than others.
40k we have the BRB and can buy any codex we want right?
So I can play any army you can right?
We ARE playing to the same rules, your choice if you like an army composition less than optimal.

Here is the kicker:
A game to be competitive does not have to be balanced (grab the best the meta allows and have at it).
You pick the best the game has to offer, playing the type of strategy that "wins" while keeping in mind others could pick the same.

But for games to be "fun" (pick the army you like) they need to be balanced.
It is terribly easy to play a "balanced" game when the composition is the same for both sides.
I suspect many would be unhappy playing only marines with different colors and no other difference.
Composing balanced armies is breaking components into elements of rock-paper-scissors.
Combinations of strengths and weaknesses.
Troops die to cavalry, artillery dies to mêlée, etc.
Food for thought here: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/how-far-should-you-go-to-win
Balance and "matchup charts" where some armies that lose "every time" signal the game designer "why should anyone bother with that?".:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/game-balance-and-yomi

The game is fair from a competitive viewpoint: you can field anything I can.
It is not fun when your much loved Sisters of Battle struggle mightily with the Eldar with the same points cost never mind the long overdue model updates.

I am sorry I don't see what your point is. I can agree yes you can field what ever I field so therefor it's a balanced system. Then you go onto how much it's not fun when the Sisters of Battle struggle against Eldar. Did you just admit the game is not balance and not fair in a "competitive" environment?

Sorry don't see your point here.

Davor wrote:
I am sorry I don't see what your point is. I can agree yes you can field what ever I field so therefor it's a balanced system. Then you go onto how much it's not fun when the Sisters of Battle struggle against Eldar. Did you just admit the game is not balance and not fair in a "competitive" environment?
Sorry don't see your point here.

Okay, "fair" is you can do anything I can do right?
Nothing is preventing you from getting any army fielded every bit as strong as my choices.

When it comes to playing competitively, those Sisters of Battle are not even a consideration.
They are meaningless, pointless, a losing army vs a top-tier army.
BUT GW has failed as a designer to not look for that balance because people "want" to play that army, happen to like it and may have worked hard to make it look good.
The game "should" play-out like a game of StarCraft.
What I point out here is not a matter of "fair" it is a matter of a missed opportunity where pushing for a "casual", low power game is the only way these armies can be "fun" by having a close scrap and not being tabled.

I am the absolute worst of representatives for both sides of this discussion.
I have a bunch of "sucky" armies that are not very competitive because I "like" them by story and look.
BUT I like to play competitively and plan the living heck out of my (SM) army lists which happen to beat Eldar and Tau if the player was not trying too hard..
Birthday is coming and I think two Tau starter army boxes are coming my way so I am unsure if I will then be firmly placed into the "TFG" realm until I get a few Riptides...

 Talizvar wrote:

Davor wrote:
I am sorry I don't see what your point is. I can agree yes you can field what ever I field so therefor it's a balanced system. Then you go onto how much it's not fun when the Sisters of Battle struggle against Eldar. Did you just admit the game is not balance and not fair in a "competitive" environment?
Sorry don't see your point here.

Okay, "fair" is you can do anything I can do right?
Nothing is preventing you from getting any army fielded every bit as strong as my choices.

When it comes to playing competitively, those Sisters of Battle are not even a consideration.
They are meaningless, pointless, a losing army vs a top-tier army.
BUT GW has failed as a designer to not look for that balance because people "want" to play that army, happen to like it and may have worked hard to make it look good.
The game "should" play-out like a game of StarCraft.
What I point out here is not a matter of "fair" it is a matter of a missed opportunity where pushing for a "casual", low power game is the only way these armies can be "fun" by having a close scrap and not being tabled.

I am the absolute worst of representatives for both sides of this discussion.
I have a bunch of "sucky" armies that are not very competitive because I "like" them by story and look.
BUT I like to play competitively and plan the living heck out of my (SM) army lists which happen to beat Eldar and Tau if the player was not trying too hard..
Birthday is coming and I think two Tau starter army boxes are coming my way so I am unsure if I will then be firmly placed into the "TFG" realm until I get a few Riptides...

That is my point though my friend. We should be able to play the army we want and everything be balanced instead of playing the army we want and someone else plays an army because they will have an easier time to win with. So if one person is playing an army he wants, like how GW encourages you to start (or any company for that matter) they shouldn't be handicapped because of it.

But if you are seeing You can pick anything and I can pick anything, we are now not becoming Plastic Toy Soldier Jocks, but now becoming Plastic Toy Soldier General Managers and trying to get the best "free agents" to make our team. I can't argue with that. You are correct. Great point, I never saw it that way.

So its been a few weeks so the OP will have been and played again. What was the follow-on reaction?

Davor wrote:
That is my point though my friend. We should be able to play the army we want and everything be balanced instead of playing the army we want and someone else plays an army because they will have an easier time to win with. So if one person is playing an army he wants, like how GW encourages you to start (or any company for that matter) they shouldn't be handicapped because of it.

GW had backed out of the tournament scene so they have used "forge the narrative" a little more strongly than in prior years.
They have pretty much admitted that balance is not really a consideration for them (yet points values continue to be used that infer balance.).
If they continue with this "trend" they should put in the Big Rule Book the words "These rules are intended to simulate engagements in the world of 40k and lend them structure, at no time are these rules intended for competitive play due to the complexity of events being simulated.".
That should end once and for all these kinds of discussions and our insistence of holding tournaments or leagues with prizes for "winning" battles.
I think Leagues could offer prizes for assembling and painting units as it progresses, that would go nicely for furthering the hobby.
I would hold a rules quiz and those with the most correct answers get a prize.

But if you are seeing You can pick anything and I can pick anything, we are now not becoming Plastic Toy Soldier Jocks, but now becoming Plastic Toy Soldier General Managers and trying to get the best "free agents" to make our team. I can't argue with that. You are correct. Great point, I never saw it that way.

You are still holding onto the idea that you actually have a specific "team".
You pick the best team that wins AND also find the best free agents to make that winning team even better.
A competition with a prize is play to win, not "half attempt at it" (without going out of your way to be unsportsmanlike... it is a game!).
Man, I sound like a jerk spelling this out this way but I LIKE being challenged, I actually smile when I get thumped when I have done my best: it means I have something to learn.
It guarantees me asking that in a few weeks time we have another go to see if I can manage a win or I have more to learn yet...
If I win every time it is not good because it means I am not playing similar minded people who will get me to sharpen my tactics (plus it is not so much fun for them).

I still enjoy the opportunity with people I know to say "Do you trust me to try to create a "balanced" game/ scenario for our armies to play?" and give the understanding they can switch for my army if they want or veto the whole thing altogether no hurt feelings?
This is what people are trying to propose within that League play: I either handicap or buff what is needed to try to get an even power level with the intent of a close game = fun.
Too bad GW could not be bothered to do that (yet?).

 notprop wrote:
So its been a few weeks so the OP will have been and played again. What was the follow-on reaction?

We won the third game meaning we are locked into winning. Our Opponents loved playing use, with out 6 Imperial Knight list, we had fun kiling, and they had fun blowing up all out big toys.

Good to hear. Glad to hear there was fun to be had.