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.

If anyone wants to figure out the appeal or come to an understanding of a given mode of play, make sure you approach it with the idea in mind that it's actually fun for the people who like it.

If you go into assessing any type of play (be it tournaments, narrative events, pick up games at a store, map campaigns, simple beginner games, just throwing stuff together, crazy games like seeing how many guardsmen it takes to stop the rampaging tank, whatever) and assume that it sucks or that it's bad, you'll never actually understand it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Personally I like both but I like the Simplicity that power levels will give when I don't want to screw around with nitpicking a list. I'm also the fact that most of the interesting missions seem to be narrative will make me try to push my group to do a narrative games but if somebody really wants to play matched with paying for everything I will do that as well.

Me too. I already have a game scheduled using the shared images of the data slates and core rules. We're doing "only war" with power level. We're going to fool around and have some fun with stuff that has been sitting in storage since early 5th edition.

After that we're going to see just how compatible this new version of 40k is with the Age of Sigmar: Skirmish book. I think we'll need to add a lot more terrain.

Open Play? We must be idiotic or something.

-

What I think is that there is a subset of players (Peregrine seems to fall in this category) who cannot fathom any reason why you wouldn't take the "best" options available if you can, and no reason at all will make sense because it's not "optimal" and doesn't give you an advantage of some sort. Then there are players who sometimes pick the optimal and sometimes don't, depending on whatever (what models they have, their fluff, because they rolled a die before the game to determine which weapon they would take, etc.) and that seems like an anathema to someone who only looks at what is numerically the better choice and takes nothing but that.

What I mean is there are groups of people who play Open Play without any issues at all in AOS, because they know the difference between being able to abuse the system and choosing to abuse the system, and then there are people who will see an abuse and, as long as nothing else stops them, take advantage of that simply because they can. It's a very strange sociological dichotomy when you think about it, similar to saying that if there was no law against theft, everyone would steal everything because there would be no reason to pay since you didn't have to.

From what I can see, Power Level isn't intended to be used on its own. The process, as far as I can see, is thus:

Come up with a scenario or idea - Ordo Xenos Inquisitor with Valhallan Astra Militarum support and an allied Tau Fire Warrior contingent cleansing an undercity of genestealer infestation, Astra Militarum defending an Adeptus mechanicus facility against Ork and Necron threats or Valhallan and Tallarn troops have to repel a Chaos invasion and simultaneous cult uprising while not entirely trusting each other. Then, choose appropriate forces based on the idea and the models you have available. At that point, you can look at the relative Power Levels to see if you've got a major imbalance, and then you can do something about it (allow the outmanned force some reinforcements, defensive positions or simply adjust the victory conditions). Obviously you can do that with the full points if you want, but it's not really necessary; a lot of this will be judged based on players' experience, with the Power Level as a rough rule of thumb.

Narrative and Open also lets you play things that you just want to play sort of like Unbound.

Playing What You Want:
>The ones I always wanted to play was Shrike and his Command Squad loaded will Jump Packs and Lighting Claws. Under Matched play that is prohibitive by points, but Under Narrative not so much. Now my group would not just do that without telling everyone you were going to so they could put together something like that.
>I love Rough Riders, always have an always will. I have been playing them since the Rouge Trader Days. It did not matter to me if they were good or not, if I could put them on a list I would and toss in Creed and they could really do some damage in a backfield.
>A friend of mine like to play an all Dreadnought Army. He had to borrow every Dread in the group to do such, but he liked playing them. He did not care if they were good or not.
>He also wants to do a 100% Geanstealer Army, nothing but Geanstealers.
>I would also like to play an all Wolf Army, just Thunder Wolves and Fenresian Wolves. Have not got the models together to do such, but it is a plan. Not because of a Power Level or anything, but just because I think it would be cool.

Common sense would tell you none of these ideas are good for 'Competitive-Play', but that is not the point of playing armies like this.

What I don't understand anymore is why you would stop playing a group of models or a Unit (or an Edition) just because they are just ok or bad. 6th and 7th were playable if you just wanted to have fun.

Er an army of thunder wolves will be broken beyond belief and I say that as a sw player.

hobojebus wrote:
Er an army of thunder wolves will be broken beyond belief and I say that as a sw player.

The plan is 3 Wolf Lords (Each with 2 Wolves), Canis Wolfborn, 1 Iron Priest (With Cyberwolves), 1 Pack of Thunderwolves and the rest just Wolves, lost of Wolves...

 frozenwastes wrote:
Do you honestly believe people actually do that? That they play "buy more to win" games?

No, I don't believe that people actually do that. I believe that most people take one look at no-points games, recognize immediately that the person who spends the most money wins, and play a better game instead. That's why launching with no points almost killed AoS before GW rushed out a book with a point system to attempt to salvage the game.

I don't know why it's so hard to understand that some people might not care about making sure they pay 19 points per model and then 7 points for this item and 15 points for this when they can just do "10 power for this unit" and get their models on the table.

Because it isn't any faster once you have some basic familiarity with your army. You aren't adding up single points like that, you're comparing "100 points for a melta vet squad" to "10 power for a melta vet squad" and taking the same amount of time either way. I don't know why people like you seem to think that making a list with points is some kind of tedious burden, while making a list with different points is effortless.

What I said was that people need to think it's about that because they can't understand why the power level system is even there. Their failure of imagination is to such a degree that they come up with people with developmental disorders as the real reason it's there. That's laughable. And we saw it in this very thread.

You do realize that the person who made the argument about disability mitigation likes the power level system, right? And was using that argument as a defense of it, alongside their other arguments in favor of power level (and open play)?

I just don't see the need for explicit open-play rules. Are we that far gone that we need to spell out that you can do what you want if the opponent consents? I'm a little sad now. It's like those obvious instructions they have on things now like don't put fork in power socket, or don't drink gasoline. Don't leave hand grenades near unsupervised children. It's probably just me. :(

 Peregrine wrote:

No, I don't believe that people actually do that. I believe that most people take one look at no-points games, recognize immediately that the person who spends the most money wins, and play a better game instead.

You really are here just to denigrate other people's preferences aren't you? I just explained to you that those who actually do open play don't do what you think they do and you reply with that?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I maintain that narrative players are filthy casuals because A) I'm a malicious person and B) lord knows that the distinction between "competitive" and "WAAC" ceased to exist on this forum many years ago, so it's only fair.

Exalted



Wanting for balance, structure and being as on the same page as possible with my prospective opponents when it comes to the rules = foaming at the mouth win at all cost sociopath (possibly with halitosis)


I think it's fine to have any preference among the options presented, but what you don't get to do is parade the false dichotomy of balance coming at the cost narrative. There have been plenty of opinions in the thread that are nuanced, IE express fondness or even preference for narrative play while still acknowledging the importance of accurate balance (points, ie even if they're wrong they're the closest we've got to a power/efficacy metric)

Peregrine is not wrong, one method is objectively more balanced (in terms of GW own efficacy rating in point value) than the other.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Peregrine is not wrong however, one method is objectively more balanced (in terms of GW own efficacy rating in point value) than the other.

But he just can't seem to accept the possibility that for some people a more general system is exactly what they are looking for and that maximum objective balance might not be the goal of those people. That to them, "good enough" really is good enough for their games.

Casual just means for funzys

 frozenwastes wrote:
You really are here just to denigrate other people's preferences aren't you? I just explained to you that those who actually do open play don't do what you think they do and you reply with that?

Fine, there's a tiny minority who do open play the way you're describing. Most people, as demonstrated by the spectacular failure of no-points AoS, took one look at the system and its obvious flaws and said "NOPE". The few people who continue playing without points are fixing a broken system by, implicitly or explicitly, agreeing not to exploit its problems. And they're probably doing it by playing with a point system in all but name, where everyone understands what points a unit costs in the normal game and sticks to roughly equal point totals. I don't care if they have fun with it, their existence does not negate the fact that open play is a "pay to win" game any more than a group of people agreeing to play a FTP MMO together without using any cash-shop purchases negates its "pay to win" status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:
But he just can't seem to accept the possibility that for some people a more general system is exactly what they are looking for and that maximum objective balance might not be the goal of those people. That to them, "good enough" really is good enough for their games.

I don't accept it because it's a nonsense argument. Using power levels saves a trivial amount of time and effort compared to using the conventional point system. You're still making a list the same way and adding up point costs, the only difference is that those point costs are a much less accurate representation of a unit's power. You're making the game less balanced but getting nothing in return. Unless of course you count the smug self-congratulatory attitude many people seem to have, where using a less-accurate point system is proof of how "casual" they are and how superior they are to those WAAC TFG tournament players they hate...

Acknowledging the existence of people who prefer objectively less balanced gaming is one thing, being forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 5,1 or really whatever "that party" deems it that day is a whole other matter. Thougt crime. (waacness)




From personal experience, I have indeed encountered individuals who use the social camouflage of casual play to mask some pretty unhealthy emotions they won't allow themselves to really encounter head on. I'm a fatty, gym class was rough on me through all of highschool, you develop the view that somehow being competitive is a deep character flaw. Took years to get over the idea that competition in any form was somehow a weakness or morale failing or only for jocks and bullies.

I don't always agree with peregrine, but again I must in this instance because for every genuinely good natured narrative/casual (often they self identify as such) I have encountered who genuinely convey the best of intentions I also encounter passive aggressive smug individuals who eschew every bit a holier art than though attitude often encountered at the competitive end of things. It's just horseshoe theory.

sorry haven't read all of the thread, but had a quick question w/ the leaked rules.

So there is a case (probably more, I haven't read everything) of this:

Unit X costs 17 pts and is 7 Power
Unit Y costs 15 pts and is 9 Power

Open/Narrative use Power, yes? So, do those modes value stats, wargear, abilities, etc differently? Like a Melta or DS or something is just better/worse in Open/Narrative compared to Matched? I'm guessing it's still speculative til we start playing games to find out, but anyone have any ideas?

edit:
nvm, Power doesn't take into account upgrades and such, right? Interesting formula or algorithm GW used to determine some of these #'s...

 Crablezworth wrote:
Acknowledging the existence of people who prefer objectively less balanced gaming is one thing, being forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 5,1 or really whatever "that party" deems it that day is a whole other matter. Thougt crime. (waacness)

Sure. Part of the problem with internet discussions is people bringing baggage from previous threads. You end up with endless pushing back in an ebb and flow to the point where people are calling people WAAC when they are just competitive or declaring an entire way to play idiotic and then ardently defending a caricature of it.

There's no intellectual honesty on either side of that one.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:


edit:
nvm, Power doesn't take into account upgrades and such, right? Interesting formula or algorithm GW used to determine some of these #'s...

Yup, which is why it's objectively less balanced than points. Apparently the existence of someone's subjective preference of game type means all things are equal, post modernism for all. My dog is bigger than my cat, but I like my cat more and as such, my cat is bigger than my dog.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Acknowledging the existence of people who prefer objectively less balanced gaming is one thing, being forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 5,1 or really whatever "that party" deems it that day is a whole other matter. Thougt crime. (waacness)

Sure. Part of the problem with internet discussions is people bringing baggage from previous threads. You end up with endless pushing back in an ebb and flow to the point where people are calling people WAAC when they are just competitive or declaring an entire way to play idiotic and then ardently defending a caricature of it.

There's no intellectual honesty on either side of that one.

Sure but there was never any intellectual honesty in bringing identity politics into gaming. The reality though is that doesn't stop anyone from either identifying as any "type" of gamer or being accused of being any "type" of gamer. Be it waac or casual. Back in the day we at least had distinctions between waac and power gamer, but with time it seems shades of grey just shift to black and white.


Argument and opinion mix a bit too much but there are definitely aspects of the discussion being had here that really aren't subjective. Which method is more objectively balanced is not the same as stating one's subjective preference among the 3 options available.


An opinion is unfalsifiable, people are generally the best source on their own thoughts and opinions. Essentially, making the argument that someone who claims to prefer narrative or open play is lieing is sort of pointless. But when they start to say that their preference also lets them claim 2 + 2 =5, well, you'll get disagreement on that.

Agreeing this much with peregrine doesn't make me feel great(it's starting to scare me), but he's right dammit.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I just don't see the need for explicit open-play rules. Are we that far gone that we need to spell out that you can do what you want if the opponent consents? I'm a little sad now. It's like those obvious instructions they have on things now like don't put fork in power socket, or don't drink gasoline. Don't leave hand grenades near unsupervised children. It's probably just me. :(

You're looking at it the wrong way. They're not molly coddling you with this, they're looking out at all the stuff people do already and are saying 'yes, these things are good. We as the creators of the game are endorsing these fun things you are doing. We also wanted to contribute some of our design specifically to add to this type of gaming. Feel free to use it or not at your leisure!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Acknowledging the existence of people who prefer objectively less balanced gaming is one thing, being forced to agree that 2 + 2 = 5,1 or really whatever "that party" deems it that day is a whole other matter. Thougt crime. (waacness)




From personal experience, I have indeed encountered individuals who use the social camouflage of casual play to mask some pretty unhealthy emotions they won't allow themselves to really encounter head on. I'm a fatty, gym class was rough on me through all of highschool, you develop the view that somehow being competitive is a deep character flaw. Took years to get over the idea that competition in any form was somehow a weakness or morale failing or only for jocks and bullies.

I don't always agree with peregrine, but again I must in this instance because for every genuinely good natured narrative/casual (often they self identify as such) I have encountered who genuinely convey the best of intentions I also encounter passive aggressive smug individuals who eschew every bit a holier art than though attitude often encountered at the competitive end of things. It's just horseshoe theory.

That's a problem with the people, not the mode of play. And it's not like points vs powerlevel is going to make a significant difference. That players not suddenly going to be fun to play against because you use matched play rules and points over narrative play rules and powerlevels. He's not suddenly going to stop pushing every rule he can because a dreadnought costs 8 instead of 140 or w/e. No amount of game system design is going to stop an unpleasant player from being unpleasant.

I also an a firm believer that this kind of behavoir is much rarer than people tend to fear it is. In my completely anecdotal experience, competitive players are on the whole better sports and more fun to converse with than the type of player who shouts about how 'waacs are ruining the game' or any of the myriad of other things I've heard people whine about in regards to list building.

ERJAK wrote:

That's a problem with the people, not the mode of play.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

ERJAK wrote:


And it's not like points vs powerlevel is going to make a significant difference. .

It will make an objectively measurable difference, but use all the adjectives you'd like. Opinion isn't fact.

ERJAK wrote:

No amount of game system design is going to stop an unpleasant player from being unpleasant.

Agreed, but some systems reward them more than others.

ERJAK wrote:
In my completely anecdotal experience, competitive players are on the whole better sports and more fun to converse with than the type of player who shouts about how 'waacs are ruining the game' or any of the myriad of other things I've heard people whine about in regards to list building

That's generally been my experience as well for the most part, although I've certainly encountered extremes at both ends that sorta blur the line.

ERJAK wrote:
You're looking at it the wrong way. They're not molly coddling you with this, they're looking out at all the stuff people do already and are saying 'yes, these things are good. We as the creators of the game are endorsing these fun things you are doing. We also wanted to contribute some of our design specifically to add to this type of gaming. Feel free to use it or not at your leisure!'

It feels like ridiculous coddling because open play doesn't add anything to the game. There's no design being contributed, only a statement of the obvious: that you can ignore the list-building rules if you want. Outside of that single sentence open play does nothing that can't already be done with conventional point-based games. It's just one more case of GW getting credit for "supporting narrative/casual play" without actually doing anything to improve the game for those things, as if anything that is bad for competitive play is automatically brilliant game design for narrative/casual games.

That players not suddenly going to be fun to play against because you use matched play rules and points over narrative play rules and powerlevels.

Actually they very often will be more fun to play. It won't help with someone who is just a TFG in general*, but the more balanced the game is the less room there is for people to exploit balance problems and crush you with overpowered lists. And the conventional point system is indisputably better for balance than the less-accurate point system of power levels. It's not perfect, of course, since GW sucks at game design, but it's better.

*Which, as you said, is not that common. Most of the time the problem is a difference in goals where one player cares more about list optimization than the other, but nobody is a bad person.

Yeah its really hard to be TFG when you can't game the system, in a points free system TFG thrives you can't call him out for spamming the most powerful units while you take a fluffy list because its bring what you like.

In a well written well balanced game they can't pull that bs as there's no option for it in the first place.

Open and narrative are both open to greater levels of abuse than matched is.

The upside is that at least in narrative, while it is more open to abuse, the guys that want to break the game are usually not playing narrative play anyway.

So it comes out in the wash.

No TFG just wants to win and win big if he can do that easiest in narative thats where he'll lurk.

TFG don't tend to like competative enviroments because skill is a factor and TFG has no skill which is why they cheat and bring as much broken stuff as possible.

In 20 years of running narrative events I can count a TFG on one hand. They usually avoid our events because we don't let them min/max.

 auticus wrote:
In 20 years of running narrative events I can count a TFG on one hand. They usually avoid our events because we don't let them min/max.

You run (presumably) well-structured events. TFG would lurk in pickup games, or more poorly-run events, to get his easy wins. You can't prevent someone from min-maxing in a pickup game, especially when it can be difficult to pick up/nobody agrees exactly what min-maxing is.*

*Depending on your definition, it could be absuing anti-fluff combos, or using optimal, efficient load-outs. (The horror, the eldritch horror)

 Verviedi wrote:

 auticus wrote:
In 20 years of running narrative events I can count a TFG on one hand. They usually avoid our events because we don't let them min/max.

You run (presumably) well-structured events. TFG would lurk in pickup games, or more poorly-run events, to get his easy wins. You can't prevent someone from min-maxing in a pickup game, especially when it can be difficult to pick up/nobody agrees exactly what min-maxing is.*

*Depending on your definition, it could be absuing anti-fluff combos, or using optimal, efficient load-outs. (The horror, the eldritch horror)

SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Sure it could depend on what you call narrative games. I've never seen pickup games be anything other than competitive / matched play style rules which is why the TFGs in our area thrive in that style of play. Because you can't prevent them from min/max since the rules say they can in matched play.

I'm referring to narrative play (I don't see anyone playing open play so I cannot comment). Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.

Our TFGs howl at the narrative events for disallowing their min/max lists but they romp around in matched play events with their power lists.

 auticus wrote:
Sure it could depend on what you call narrative games. I've never seen pickup games be anything other than competitive / matched play style rules which is why the TFGs in our area thrive in that style of play. Because you can't prevent them from min/max since the rules say they can in matched play.

I'm referring to narrative play (I don't see anyone playing open play so I cannot comment). Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.

Our TFGs howl at the narrative events for disallowing their min/max lists but they romp around in matched play events with their power lists.

Exactly-you have tight, well run narrative events. Not everyone does.

 auticus wrote:
Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.

IOW, you concede that narrative play as-written is broken and does nothing to stop "TFG"s. Your narrative games work because you don't play with GW's rules, you create your own house rules that restrict army construction, require approval from the event organizer, and ban the people you don't like. These things would not be necessary if narrative play as published by GW wasn't a broken mess and a failure at its supposed goals.

Competitive play as written is also broken lol.

Narratve play is not about min/maxing. So if someone wants to show up to min/max, you have them adjust their roster. And if they won't... you show them the tournament room instead.

What you I think are trying to argue, based on reading your past arguments, is that there shoudl only be one way to play and that narrative and competitive should be one and the same.

That however does not remove my previous comment which was based on how in my experience TFG doesn't go to narrative events because TFG can't min/max. But those are my narrative events, where we prevent them from doing so. I don't have any experience with other narrative events because I can count them all on one hand beyond what I do since the default is tournament min/max play events.