Switch Theme:

How to encourage "Keeping it Casual"  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Stalwart Ultramarine Tactical Marine





Hey guys, I have plans to start up a private league/community for players who are on the same page as being casual and semi-competitive and I was wondering as to how would you enforce or encourage people to stick to the idea rather than going ham and bringing crazy combos for the sake of winning? The problem I see with similar groups is it's a rule of mouth, but there's no formal boundaries and a list's competitiveness is subjective to each person.

Some ideas I proposed were:

- Have ranked and unranked matches
- Have a competitive rating system for your opponent's list which you can fill out at the end of the game. It'd read something like this and then reward points based on the differential:

Spoiler:

"How would you rate your opponent's army in terms of power level/competitiveness?"
5) It was a top tier competitive list that was designed to win any means necessary and completely disregarded any aspect of narrative. Definitely suitable to do well in a grand tournament.
4) It was a strong list that may do well in a grand tournament, but did hold back a bit from being optimal.
3) It was a balanced list that was designed with the intention of winning, but had a good amount of sub optimal units chosen for narrative or fluff reasons
2) It was mostly a narrative list designed more to tell a story with light intentions of winning.
1) It was a totally narrative, test, or fun army with very little regard for winning. The player simply wanted to relive the spirit of the fluff.



What would you guys propose to your group or my group to keep things more laid back?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 02:32:04


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Define clear balance rules/errata/etc so that the lists you don't think are balanced are not legal and there is no ambiguity about what is "casual" and what isn't. Expecting people to agree on what is "casual" is almost guaranteed to produce arguments.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

So what if my list is both fluffy AND competitive?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Stalwart Ultramarine Tactical Marine





Which is part of the frustration of current 40k is formations let you do that. You COULD argue that the tau riptide wing and saim-hann warhost with scatbikes and a wraithknight, and a piranha wing are allied together to defeat a common cause. It's more or less a judgement call on how the units synergize together and whether or not you took them for the buffs or you took them because you like them and you think they're cool. You could also factor in how did you build those units individually? Did you min/max a battle company to be 5 man squads in a rhino with a grav cannon or did you actually stay codex compliant with 10 man squads and mix up the weapons?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 03:07:18


 
   
Made in us
Ship's Officer






 Peregrine wrote:
Define clear balance rules/errata/etc so that the lists you don't think are balanced are not legal and there is no ambiguity about what is "casual" and what isn't. Expecting people to agree on what is "casual" is almost guaranteed to produce arguments.


^^This. Be open and clear about exactly what you want. "Unwritten" or "unspoken" rules are anathema to community building. If there is something specific you want banned, then ban it. Be upfront with all your players that you are imposing certain house-rules, and as the league proceeds forward, take feedback from players about what is working and what isn't, then adjust your house-rules and ban-lists accordingly.

Do NOT just say "Hey don't bring mean lists guys!" and expect everything to work out.

/2cents

Ask Not, Fear Not - (Gallery), ,

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Yeah! Who needs balanced rules when everyone can take giant stompy robots! Balanced rules are just for TFG WAAC players, and everyone hates them.

- This message brought to you by the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia: 'Cause winning is for losers!
 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut






There are two major forces at play here as I see it.

Balanced game play isn't enforced by most tournament rules at all. Rules like no LOW, only 1 detachment etc will only give the power gamers a framework to min max their army in. They will not change the mindset of those players. Just look at tournaments. They all try to keep things "fair" with a ton of house rules and we can all agree that most of them are won by out of control not casual at all lists, even if the restrictions are draconic. This is the obvious one.

The other is that what is "competitive" isn't clear cut for some players. A large portion of the players tend to be biased towards their own army. The same player who thinks grav spam to be fluffy could scream hell and damnation when their allied riptide gets forced axed.A general " try to match your opponents power lv" rule or the system you came up with might work with a healthy community. But do expect some powercreep and hurt players from time to time when you introduce a ranking system or when the community isn't as homogeneous in what kind of games they like to play.

I honestly feel that soft unwritten rules do a better job at keeping things fun than extensive limiting rule sets. The alternative if your community isn't able to just regulate it themselves would be to create a system in where the competitiveness of your list directly affects the game results. Such as directly subtracting the difference in community comp credit score from the victory points gained in a mission.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 03:16:19


Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




This is what my group does, works well, and is exactly as your groups mindset.

First and foremost, let people run what they want, but also:

- Have an 'Ard Boyz event every couple of months to partially cleanse the urge to bring cheddar

- Different people have different ideas of fun. Some enjoy competition/winning, others like fluffy games, others like to play for poos and giggles (like myself)

- Run most of the games as maelstrom. It IMO really helps level out the have and have-nots dexes.

- come up with your own set of house rules so people know what not to stress about and how every game will play (really helps fix rules gaps). * you can take this one step further to houser Ile stupidity in codices if it's unanimously agreed

- hate to say it, but ban certain formations outside of the competitive events (Skyhammer, Riptidewing eyc).

- allow people to bring multiple lists so it's more fun, more fair and less TAC in which Eldar, SM and Necrons are king.

- Also, my buddies are discussing this right now, but if the match is a high top-tier army vs a really bad, gak- tier army, give the player running the have not army a points handicap.

Hope this helps. For what it is worth, my group consists of 38 people across 3 stores. It should probably help yours. Glad to see more like-minded groups on dakka!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 03:20:44


 
   
Made in us
Stalwart Ultramarine Tactical Marine





 oldzoggy wrote:


A general " try to match your opponents power lv" rule or the system you came up with might work with a healthy community. But do expect some powercreep and hurt players from time to time when you introduce a ranking system or when the community isn't as homogeneous in what kind of games they like to play. The alternative if your community isn't able to just regulate it themselves would be to create a system in where the competitiveness of your list directly affects the game results. Such as directly subtracting the difference in community comp credit score from the victory points gained in a mission.



That's basically what I had in mind with the rating system where you get points if there's a differential.

On the topic of comps, could anyone point me in the right direction for a good system to follow?
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut






Dantes_Baals wrote:


- Run most of the games as maelstrom. It IMO really helps level out the have and have-nots dexes.



This inst balancing at all. Some players will like it others will not, forcing them to use it seems strange. And no one can deny that it favours the already quite competitive fast armies.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want some guidlines you might want to take a look at
http://www.communitycomp.org/

It is quite a heavy set of rules, that will require some book keeping. They are however quite successfully at pointing out all the more powerfull options. So you might not want to use it if it isn't necessary, but it would be a great guidline if you do need a tool in balancing it out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 03:25:11


Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 oldzoggy wrote:
Dantes_Baals wrote:


- Run most of the games as maelstrom. It IMO really helps level out the have and have-nots dexes.



This inst balancing at all. Some players will like it others will not, forcing them to use it seems strange. And no one can deny that it favours the already quite competitive fast armies.

First pff, I didn't say force. If they want to play purge the alien, let em play purge the alien. But seriously, other than AdMech what army does not have the mobility to compete in maelstrom? Seriously . Worst case scenario, when in doubt, go for a tabling.
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut






Dantes_Baals wrote:

If they want to play purge the alien,


Pugre the alien is the worst mission ever made in my opinion. Not playing Mealstorm doesn't mean that you should play that abomination.
But I do think that mealstorm is almost as bad.



other than AdMech what army does not have the mobility to compete in maelstrom? Seriously . Worst case scenario, when in doubt, go for a tabling.


This is exactly the issue with those missions ( outside the whole unbalanced cards thingy).
Most non competitive lists don't have the mobility while all competitive lists have.

Lets rank the top tier lists at the moment.
Eldar -> Jetbikes will guarantee high mobility.
SM gravbike spam -> High mobility
KDK -> High mobility
Wulfs on Wulfs -> High mobility

Tau, admech -> Moderate mobility. Keep in mind those lists are shooty but are still faster than your average footslogger.

Now look at the bottom tier
Footslogging orks -> low mobility
Footslogging guards -> low mobility
No flyrant Nids -> Low mobility

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 03:45:36


Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 NInjatactiks wrote:
Did you min/max a battle company to be 5 man squads in a rhino with a grav cannon or did you actually stay codex compliant with 10 man squads and mix up the weapons?


This has nothing to do with fluff or "what is cool". A marine army with mixed weapons is not "fluffy" or "cool", it's just poorly optimized. You're never going to have a working system if you insist on treating "casual" and "weak lists with poor strategic choices" as synonyms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oldzoggy wrote:
If you want some guidlines you might want to take a look at
http://www.communitycomp.org/


Do not use this system, ever. It's complete garbage and seems to be based on the premise that every army, no matter how good it is, must have at least X units that have a comp penalty. Lots of things that aren't a problem get massively penalized, and all it really does is change what the best list is. It's a horrible failure of a system and the people who created it should be embarrassed about their work.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 03:49:53


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Stalwart Ultramarine Tactical Marine





 Peregrine wrote:
 NInjatactiks wrote:
Did you min/max a battle company to be 5 man squads in a rhino with a grav cannon or did you actually stay codex compliant with 10 man squads and mix up the weapons?


This has nothing to do with fluff or "what is cool". A marine army with mixed weapons is not "fluffy" or "cool", it's just poorly optimized. You're never going to have a working system if you insist on treating "casual" and "weak lists with poor strategic choices" as synonyms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oldzoggy wrote:
If you want some guidlines you might want to take a look at
http://www.communitycomp.org/


Do not use this system, ever. It's complete garbage and seems to be based on the premise that every army, no matter how good it is, must have at least X units that have a comp penalty. Lots of things that aren't a problem get massively penalized, and all it really does is change what the best list is. It's a horrible failure of a system and the people who created it should be embarrassed about their work.


Well, that's some pretty harsh critiques so I'm interested in what you would suggest in its place, Mr. Trump .

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 03:55:19


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 NInjatactiks wrote:
Well, that's some pretty harsh critiques so I'm interested in what you would suggest in its place.


Change the rules, preferably through adjusting point costs where possible (which should be pretty much everything besides formations and multiple-LoW armies). If unit X is overpowered then change its point cost to match its value. Don't leave its rules in their overpowered state and say "you can take this, but you're a bad person if you do and you should feel bad about it". This is the fundamental problem with comp systems, they acknowledge that unit rules need to be changed but instead of changing the rules they impose this whole shame-driven system for telling you how bad you should feel about playing competitively.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gr
Longtime Dakkanaut




Halandri

De-emphasise the importance of winning, perhaps add 'narrative achievements' for players to unlock during the league to help remove that focus on winning?
   
Made in be
Wicked Warp Spider





Dantes_Baals wrote:

- Run most of the games as maelstrom. It IMO really helps level out the have and have-nots dexes.


If a system has winning conditions that are such an incoherent mess to give a chance of victory even to the underdogs, does not mean such system is a good one, or even a fun one. Some players hate being denied agency, and Maelstrom is another layer to the game's current randumbness.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 14:04:32


Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Hyperspace

As much as I personally like Maelstrom, do not make it mandatory. It rewards already powerful and mobile armies while punishing others.



Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Disclaimer: I'm all about casual gaming.

How does an organized league with argument-stirring grading scales to penalize your opponent even remotely approach a casual setting?
   
Made in us
Plummeting Black Templar Thunderhawk Pilot





Equestria/USA

My problem is I do not know if my opponent is playing casual and I am horrible at 40k, or that they say it is non competitive, and I am horrible at 40k. I havent won a game in 2 years, I get stomped by Khorne D strength blood thirsters, constantly regenerating nurgle greater demons, Dark Eldar tricks, Eldar D weapons, Riptide spam. But each of these people swear that they are playing casual lists. So in the end I do not know whether I am just horrible at the game or what.

I have honestly gave up on playing 40k. I just paint now. I miss my old game group.

Black Templars 4000 Deathwatch 6000
 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

My personal take on missions/game structure in order to try and prevent some sides from having a huge advantage is to borrow the mission card system from Risk. So setting up the game would go something like this:

1) Deploy scenery.
2) Each player alternates putting numbered objective markers on the table. Only one objective may start in each deployment zone and must be a minimum distance from each other.
3) Players roll off to decide deployment zone, winner will start deployment first.
4) Each Player draws a mission card which will tell them which objectives they are to hold at the end of the game. Have different cards for different sized games, with different numbers of objectives which need to be held. These cards are only seen by the drawing player.
5) Players deploy forces, alternating putting units down.
6) Player who finished deploying first gets first turn, no seizing.
7) Game lasts 6 turns.

So, each player has two or more objectives which they need to hold at the end of turn 6 in order to complete their mission. If one player completes their mission and the other player doesn't then the player who did complete their mission wins, no matter how many casualties they took, or other objectives held etc.

If both players complete their mission then the winner is determined by how many extra objectives are held by each player. If it is still a tie after that then the game is a draw.

If neither player completes their mission then the winner is determined by awarding 2 points for each mission objective held and one point for each non-mission objective. Player with most points wins. If it is a tie on points then the game is a draw.

Throw in some rules about what units can hold objectives (Infantry/Jump/Jetpack only, for example) to prevent last turn jetbike/vehicle shenanigans and I think it is good to go.

I think this is good for several reasons:

1) Each player has a definite mission to complete before they even begin deploying their models, which allows for them to deploy in such a way as to maximise their chance to complete their mission. So the Imperial Guard player will know before they put any models down whether or not they are going to need to storm their opponents deployment area or whether they will only need to push up to the midfield and be able to deploy accordingly.

2) It allows for tactical and strategic thinking and uncertainty. If you are heading towards an objective then it could be because you need that objective for your mission, or it could be that you are trying to draw your opponent away from another objective by making them think that you need that objective for your mission. Is the opponent sitting on that objective because they need it for their mission or is it in case of a tiebreak?

3) Not knowing which objectives you will need before deploying them, or even which side of the board you will be deploying on, means that each player will be less likely to try and place objectives in positions clearly advantageous to one side or the other. You haven't done yourself any good placing them all close to the left side of the table if you end up deploying on the right.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/10/11 14:58:45


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

You tell her you're not interested in meeting her parents, yet. Also, don't call her 4 times a day. Keep chill, brah.

For 40k, dunno. With my group of close friends, it was a simple "Keep it casual, guys." We knew what the\at meant, as a group. We could all dial it up to hardcore competitive, or dial it down to more casual play.

Yes, fluffy and competitive can be the same army. Looking at you, Eldar! Also, Space Marines with free transports. My Chaos pays retail, fethers!

Anyway, with people you don't know well, this can be a bit harder, if not impossible. I don't know a good answer.

Treat it like you are coaching a new employee. Instead of "Don't say anything you wouldn't tell your great grandmother" make it "Don't bring an army that you wouldn't use against your great grandmother."

But not mine. Mine taught me naughty jokes. Bad example, maybe.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 14:49:56


DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Outside of overhauling the rules/points yourself, you'll just have to roll with the punches. There's no easy way to try and bring together a group of people and have everyone on the same page for something as much of a mess as 40k. People with poor lists will have to up their game, while the top lists will have to tune down. How much, and in what ways, is impossible to tell until you're there.

Casual isn't really a defined level of gameplay/lists in the context of gaming circles. Everyone operates at different levels, and indeed, may enjoy and operate at a variety of levels.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
 NInjatactiks wrote:
Well, that's some pretty harsh critiques so I'm interested in what you would suggest in its place.


Change the rules, preferably through adjusting point costs where possible (which should be pretty much everything besides formations and multiple-LoW armies). If unit X is overpowered then change its point cost to match its value. Don't leave its rules in their overpowered state and say "you can take this, but you're a bad person if you do and you should feel bad about it". This is the fundamental problem with comp systems, they acknowledge that unit rules need to be changed but instead of changing the rules they impose this whole shame-driven system for telling you how bad you should feel about playing competitively.

Is it true they have something against Bullgryns in this system?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






People want to face new things. Just switch your army up every game and they wont really care how strong your list is or not. Make a few sub-optimal choices.

Intead of a riptide - take longstrike in a hammer head. Make a few choices like that and your list will instantly be casual.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Hyperspace

Yes, it is. Bullgryns are comped, as are Vectored Retro-Thrusters.



Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut






Yes they are kinda biased against them. Not sure what to make of that anti orge stance but it will not really limit your game. You will pay 1 of your 20 credits or all the thrusters in your army and you will run out of points before you run out of credits for spamming ogryns.

They do however hugely tax things like spamming, grav, jetbikes, knights, invisipility, etc. I would gladly trade a limit on those for a slight bias against the one unit no one even owns.

Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Hyperspace

It's not about that. It's that it's clear evidence that they have no idea what they're talking about. The fact that things like VRT and Bullgryns are comped compromises the entire system.



Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Pick both lists together over a beer

I've been playing a while, my first model was a lead marine and my first White Dwarf was bound with staples 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





Hanford, CA, AKA The Eye of Terror

In my experience sticking to the CAD and limiting/removing LOW and limiting allies (I find no BB helps, all BB is convenience) does help a lot in keeping games simple. The alternative CADs should be allowed (like the greentide or the DE realspace raiders) because they remove ObSec and improve the armies flavor, and in the case of Skittarii, are the only way it can be played. Eldar still have an advantage on this front with their scat bikes but it removes a lot of shenanigans.

Also try out the ITC, they aren't perfect but they do put a stop to things like rerollable 2+ and invisibility shenanigans.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 16:29:20


17,000 points (Valhallan)
10,000 points
6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
"Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"

-Imperial Guard Uplifting Primer 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Chosen Marine on a Palanquin






So its a fine line to walk, "keeping it casual" that is. When you implement rules, you stop keeping it casual. Everyone has their own definition of casual play, some people like high tier competitive games, but play them casually. Others like what you call fluffy lists, and play them. Then there are fluffy competitive lists. Look at say, Blackmanes Great Company for a Space Wolf Strike force. Its a bunch of drop pods, has blood claws, grey hunters, and wolf guard. Very fluffy for Space Wolves, but also pretty potent as all pods are free and arrive turn 1, plus, counter charge is beefy.

What I am trying to get at here, is that instead of putting in rules to force your version of fluffy, talk to people and see if they would be interested in a less competitive and more relaxed environment. Personally, I think some of the "less competitive" formations are super cool and fluffy, like Arjacs shield brothers, its just a bunch of TH/SS terminators, but some new players in my area thing TH/SS terminators are cheesier than pizza. So if I brought this +500pt formation alongside a cad, no deathstars or any power units. They might think I am being super competitive when I am just trying to have some fun.

There are a lot of good ideas in the thread, mainly, CAD. Sticking to CAD is always a good idea. Removing LoW can be too, it brings the game back down to earth in a sense. Most importantly though, I think that stating your intentions clearly is the most important thing. It's been working for me very well so far, I tell people I want a casual game, I am not looking to table anyone or be tabled, and I get what I am looking for. I was recently in a narrative where "Casual fluffy" was understood, but army imbalance can throw a nut into that. I brought a chaos knight to a 3000pt team game, it was the only big nasty I had. I didn't know my opponent had nothing that could easily handle it and we had a massive imbalance. They felt that I was playing to win, when I had a narrative I was following for my army.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/11 16:58:53


   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: