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.

To expand on my previous post a bit:

40K is often compared to competetive games like chess or go in such discussions, but there is one other "classical" competetive game - Bridge. Bridge is unique, because it is competetive and cooperative at the same time and you don't beat your opponents by decieving/directly outsmarting/outmanouvering them, but by being better at solving a particular, unique puzzle (deal) and comunicating this solution to your partner, so you can execute this solution. But every particular deal is "fixed" and there is nothing else to do besides being as close to optimal with your solution as possible. You don't have any means to alter the deal but it does not mean, that "rules don't matter and there is no point in playing a game". Bridge is a sport, and besides Chess it is the only "mind sports" recognised by International Olympic Comitee.

What I described above as "40K solitaires" is pretty much the same intelectual effort as playing Bridge and me and my wife adopted such style exactly because our long, long sport Bridge history.

 pumaman1 wrote:
I would propose if you are a "competitive player" but you consistently win, especially if you smash, that you should intentionally play down with weaker and non-optimized units, and have the match be a contest, leave a viable outcome for your loss. If your into seal clubbing you opponent, its time to buy a barrel, some fish, and a shotgun.

That is not competing, it's giving free wins to your opponents. List construction is part of the game, and part of competition. You can make the argument that a person who is seal clubbing should find tougher opponents and stop wasting their time on a game like that, but deliberately sabotaging yourself so that you increase your chances of losing is the exact opposite of competition.

 Blacksails wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So what is when you don't consider who won and lost but where story and thus next game's scenarios and forces go?

Win or lose irrelevant. Story is what matters. As it is we are often talking about what to do mid-game so practically both players giving inputs on both armies. Almost like 2 players on both armies.

It sounds like you're just playing with fancy painted army men and at that point, the rules don't really matter to that type of 'playing'.

Yep, definitely its those awful dismissive CAAC type players who are the problem here. Always bullying people and forcing them to play their way.

All I know is, if I had the magic power to make just a couple people running tournament level competitive lists either learn to lighten up when they're playing a new player with no experience and a limited model collection/budget or prevent them from preying on those players, I'd have a gaming group three times the size of the one I have now.

on a micro-scale, a group of gamers forming a "CAAC" clique and ostracising people for playing "too competitive", and competitive gamers acting as gatekeepers and chasing off new blood are both separate problems. But on a macro scale, the latter happens in my area FAR more than the former, and the worst competitive gamers get is a somewhat reduced pool of opponents, as people punch their ticket playing against their army and decide it's not what they're looking for.

I'd have an equivalent problem with WAAC gamers (here defined as people who don't care for a challenge and instead view playing against a new player or tailoring their list to beat an opponent as "strategy" rather than a jerk move) with CAAC gamers (people who shame and actively ostracise people for playing too competitive lists) if they were anywhere near an equivalent occurrence.

I do not consider someone politely declining a game because they know it will be one sided and it's not the kind of game they want to play to be any kind of attack or unfair. People who take tournament level TAC lists, with 4-5 detachments all different factions or subfaction tactics, killer combos or optimized spam are going to have a harder time getting a pickup game in a group that doesn't always play at that level. Given that most people pack up their army and bring it to play with them, it's pretty silly to expect them to be able to "up their game" in a pickup setting. Technically speaking the same is not true of a more competitive list, you can always take fewer points worth of models, and I have many tournament gamers who like their combos and powergaming who are perfectly happy to dive into a 1500-vs-2k contest if they know their opponent is new or just has a mostly hobby oriented list.

The fact that you and peregrine can only imagine "CAAC" or laziness or whatever as the sole motivation for a person to not be able to keep up with the current meta while simultaneously understanding that this is a hobby that costs thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours is pretty telling in this discussion. Tons of people lack the simple money, time, and inclination to keep their list up with the joneses, and play with what they have or what they like the look of. I stopped buying things for the quality of the rules they have years ago, and I'd advise anyone to do the same unless they're completely unattached to their collections and completely willing to fund new units with the sales of their existing units when metas change. We're in the Dark Reaper/Shining spear and Catachan Basilisk/LRBT spam meta currently. Say that out loud and think about how freaking silly that would sound in late 7th edition.

nou wrote:
To expand on my previous post a bit:

40K is often compared to competetive games like chess or go in such discussions, but there is one other "classical" competetive game - Bridge. Bridge is unique, because it is competetive and cooperative at the same time and you don't beat your opponents by decieving/directly outsmarting/outmanouvering them, but by being better at solving a particular, unique puzzle (deal) and comunicating this solution to your partner, so you can execute this solution. But every particular deal is "fixed" and there is nothing else to do besides being as close to optimal with your solution as possible. You don't have any means to alter the deal but it does not mean, that "rules don't matter and there is no point in playing a game". Bridge is a sport, and besides Chess it is the only "mind sports" recognised by International Olympic Comitee.

What I described above as "40K solitaires" is pretty much the same intelectual effort as playing Bridge and me and my wife adopted such style exactly because our long, long sport Bridge history.

I don't see how any of that applies to your ideas about 40k. In bridge you're still competing against an opponent, not working collaboratively with them to solve a problem. Your goal is to be better at the game and if you see a chance to deceive or out-maneuver them you're certainly going to pounce on that opportunity and not say "hey, I think this is a better solution for you". But what you're talking about in 40k is both sides of the "game" working collaboratively to solve it. And at that point what is there to solve? Of course you can "win" a "game" of 40k where one person/team controls both armies. "Hey, this side would win if the other side just moved over here, well conveniently they just did". Without the opposition there's nothing to solve, no intellectual effort, just pushing models around a table and pretending that it has some kind of meaning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yep, definitely its those awful dismissive CAAC type players who are the problem here. Always bullying people and forcing them to play their way.

You say that with sarcasm, but it sure seems to happen awfully frequently.

Given that most people pack up their army and bring it to play with them, it's pretty silly to expect them to be able to "up their game" in a pickup setting.

Then why is it reasonable to expect the competitive player to tone down their army?

The fact that you and peregrine can only imagine "CAAC" or laziness or whatever as the sole motivation for a person to not be able to keep up with the current meta while simultaneously understanding that this is a hobby that costs thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours is pretty telling in this discussion.

That's a rather blatant straw man there. Could you stop making up stuff and claiming that I said it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
I would propose if you are a "competitive player" but you consistently win, especially if you smash, that you should intentionally play down with weaker and non-optimized units, and have the match be a contest, leave a viable outcome for your loss. If your into seal clubbing you opponent, its time to buy a barrel, some fish, and a shotgun.

That is not competing, it's giving free wins to your opponents. List construction is part of the game, and part of competition. You can make the argument that a person who is seal clubbing should find tougher opponents and stop wasting their time on a game like that, but deliberately sabotaging yourself so that you increase your chances of losing is the exact opposite of competition.

I think I would very much like participating in a 40K tournament in which for every game played you are asigned a randomly chosen list (from a pool of pre-composed lists) to play a single scenario repeatedly, and overall results of a tournament are created by comparison of relative performances of players, with highest scores of each round being a benchmark point. This way list building is out of the scope and can no longer be used as an excuse for poor personal skill/performance.

 Peregrine wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
I would propose if you are a "competitive player" but you consistently win, especially if you smash, that you should intentionally play down with weaker and non-optimized units, and have the match be a contest, leave a viable outcome for your loss. If your into seal clubbing you opponent, its time to buy a barrel, some fish, and a shotgun.

That is not competing, it's giving free wins to your opponents. List construction is part of the game, and part of competition. You can make the argument that a person who is seal clubbing should find tougher opponents and stop wasting their time on a game like that, but deliberately sabotaging yourself so that you increase your chances of losing is the exact opposite of competition.

I didn't say craft an un-winnable list, but craft a list where you have to play tactically to win. Play-down, not dead.
Between the haves and have-nots, you don't need your best most excellent list to win, really you can bring 3rd string characters and still probably win, but you actually have to try. This makes you practice turn 4/5 strategies and overcoming a disadvantage you might see in a tournament later, but using lower power units against weaker opponents. Or gives the other player a chance to legitimately play past turn 1.

I also presume you don't have an infinite number of people to play against within a reasonable travel area. So you don't always have the other "top 100 worldwide" players available at all times

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Blacksails wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So what is when you don't consider who won and lost but where story and thus next game's scenarios and forces go?

Win or lose irrelevant. Story is what matters. As it is we are often talking about what to do mid-game so practically both players giving inputs on both armies. Almost like 2 players on both armies.

It sounds like you're just playing with fancy painted army men and at that point, the rules don't really matter to that type of 'playing'.

Yep, definitely its those awful dismissive CAAC type players who are the problem here. Always bullying people and forcing them to play their way.

All I know is, if I had the magic power to make just a couple people running tournament level competitive lists either learn to lighten up when they're playing a new player with no experience and a limited model collection/budget or prevent them from preying on those players, I'd have a gaming group three times the size of the one I have now.

on a micro-scale, a group of gamers forming a "CAAC" clique and ostracising people for playing "too competitive", and competitive gamers acting as gatekeepers and chasing off new blood are both separate problems. But on a macro scale, the latter happens in my area FAR more than the former, and the worst competitive gamers get is a somewhat reduced pool of opponents, as people punch their ticket playing against their army and decide it's not what they're looking for.

I'd have an equivalent problem with WAAC gamers (here defined as people who don't care for a challenge and instead view playing against a new player or tailoring their list to beat an opponent as "strategy" rather than a jerk move) with CAAC gamers (people who shame and actively ostracise people for playing too competitive lists) if they were anywhere near an equivalent occurrence.

I do not consider someone politely declining a game because they know it will be one sided and it's not the kind of game they want to play to be any kind of attack or unfair. People who take tournament level TAC lists, with 4-5 detachments all different factions or subfaction tactics, killer combos or optimized spam are going to have a harder time getting a pickup game in a group that doesn't always play at that level. Given that most people pack up their army and bring it to play with them, it's pretty silly to expect them to be able to "up their game" in a pickup setting. Technically speaking the same is not true of a more competitive list, you can always take fewer points worth of models, and I have many tournament gamers who like their combos and powergaming who are perfectly happy to dive into a 1500-vs-2k contest if they know their opponent is new or just has a mostly hobby oriented list.

The fact that you and peregrine can only imagine "CAAC" or laziness or whatever as the sole motivation for a person to not be able to keep up with the current meta while simultaneously understanding that this is a hobby that costs thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours is pretty telling in this discussion. Tons of people lack the simple money, time, and inclination to keep their list up with the joneses, and play with what they have or what they like the look of. I stopped buying things for the quality of the rules they have years ago, and I'd advise anyone to do the same unless they're completely unattached to their collections and completely willing to fund new units with the sales of their existing units when metas change. We're in the Dark Reaper/Shining spear and Catachan Basilisk/LRBT spam meta currently. Say that out loud and think about how freaking silly that would sound in late 7th edition.

I don't know why you're responding to me, or even using me as some sort of example of not understanding a 'casual' mindset. At no point have I expressed that people have to "keep up with the meta", in fact, I explicitly stated that I'm the kind of person who plays what I like to play.

Either way, WAAC and CAAC are equally problematic and toxic. Everyone else is usually some blend, or happy mix, or flexible player who plays on a range of tournament style games to campaign style games happily.

The exact reason I got out of competitive GW games was that. I got tired of having to rebuy my army once or twice a year. Its expensive, takes a lot of my time to paint, and it burnt me out.

I openly defend tournament play as the seat of such a playstyle and anyone that complains that tournaments are filled with WAAC players is to me a redundant statement.

However, the world is not black and white and I don't feel that tournament play should be the only way people play regardless of if they are in a tournament hall or a casual game, nor would I defend the notion that if you are playing a campaign and taking forces that are not optimal because the scenario calls for it that you are somehow a bad player or that 40k is not suited for such play because you should always be taking a min/max list at all times.

In that regard, THAT mentality to me can ruin groups and areas (the idea that if you aren't going balls to the wall 24/7 that you are wrong) because I've seen it run scores of players off to other things.

I see the same thing in warcraft when guildies only want to speed run dungeons and treat the game like the super bowl 24/7. People lose interest in that and bail.

If you want to grow the hobby and grow the game you need to provide an environment for all playstyles... not just one. And yes that goes the same for "COCK" play (casual at all costs lol) you shouldn't be ostracizing or bullying players that want to power game. Its just as toxic.

 pumaman1 wrote:
I didn't say craft an un-winnable list, but craft a list where you have to play tactically to win. Play-down, not dead.

Still not competition. It's like a football team deciding that they want more of a challenge and deliberately fumbling the ball to the other team. You'd never expect to see that in a competitive football game, because sabotaging yourself is not competition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
I think I would very much like participating in a 40K tournament in which for every game played you are asigned a randomly chosen list (from a pool of pre-composed lists) to play a single scenario repeatedly, and overall results of a tournament are created by comparison of relative performances of players, with highest scores of each round being a benchmark point. This way list building is out of the scope and can no longer be used as an excuse for poor personal skill/performance.

I guess you could do that, if you wanted to eliminate the skill of list construction and understanding the metagame. But the logistics of such an event would be borderline impossible to accomplish, and if you're going that route you might as well remove the randomness factor and give each player the same lists to use (playing both sides of each game so it isn't mirror matches).

But I have seen games where professional teams "rests" its usual starters against a weaker team and plays its second string/back up players instead. That team is still competing just not at its highest capabilities.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
To expand on my previous post a bit:

40K is often compared to competetive games like chess or go in such discussions, but there is one other "classical" competetive game - Bridge. Bridge is unique, because it is competetive and cooperative at the same time and you don't beat your opponents by decieving/directly outsmarting/outmanouvering them, but by being better at solving a particular, unique puzzle (deal) and comunicating this solution to your partner, so you can execute this solution. But every particular deal is "fixed" and there is nothing else to do besides being as close to optimal with your solution as possible. You don't have any means to alter the deal but it does not mean, that "rules don't matter and there is no point in playing a game". Bridge is a sport, and besides Chess it is the only "mind sports" recognised by International Olympic Comitee.

What I described above as "40K solitaires" is pretty much the same intelectual effort as playing Bridge and me and my wife adopted such style exactly because our long, long sport Bridge history.

I don't see how any of that applies to your ideas about 40k. In bridge you're still competing against an opponent, not working collaboratively with them to solve a problem. Your goal is to be better at the game and if you see a chance to deceive or out-maneuver them you're certainly going to pounce on that opportunity and not say "hey, I think this is a better solution for you". But what you're talking about in 40k is both sides of the "game" working collaboratively to solve it. And at that point what is there to solve? Of course you can "win" a "game" of 40k where one person/team controls both armies. "Hey, this side would win if the other side just moved over here, well conveniently they just did". Without the opposition there's nothing to solve, no intellectual effort, just pushing models around a table and pretending that it has some kind of meaning.

The beauty of Bridge is that there is no way of deceiving anyone except for very edge and sigular cases of "impass" and entire game is about "manouvering". And yes, you are in part working collaboratively with your opponents to solve a problem, as you are giving eachother informations during "auction" phase. I don't want to dwell deeper into Bridge in a 40K game, but I think you personally could benefit greatly from learning how to play this game. It could change your view on how different mental challanges can be how awarding and exciting they can be. The point of Bridge in particular is to have better knowledge about a game system itself - you can have an evening in which you did not won a single deal and yet be clearly the best bridge player at the table and your opponents clearly acknowledge this. What I described above in relation to 40K solitaires is straight adaptation of that mindset and one of the very few that can give a real mental challange in a game system as ill-suited to any serious play as 40K is. But we already discussed this a couple of times and you seem to be continuously unable to understand what I'm describing.

Maybe it's just me but have seen away more competitive people refuse to ever play anything that isn't the 100% most optimal list, all the time, friendly game or tournament prep, and basically scare away others from playing because they pull no punches, than this mythical "CAAC" person who plays random assortments of junk together and complains/cries cheese when they get beaten by somebody putting any thought into a list. What I normally see is "CAAC" being applied (by some people here usually) to anyone who is putting more than "is this the best choice" into selecting an option.

 Peregrine wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
I didn't say craft an un-winnable list, but craft a list where you have to play tactically to win. Play-down, not dead.

Still not competition. It's like a football team deciding that they want more of a challenge and deliberately fumbling the ball to the other team. You'd never expect to see that in a competitive football game, because sabotaging yourself is not competition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
I think I would very much like participating in a 40K tournament in which for every game played you are asigned a randomly chosen list (from a pool of pre-composed lists) to play a single scenario repeatedly, and overall results of a tournament are created by comparison of relative performances of players, with highest scores of each round being a benchmark point. This way list building is out of the scope and can no longer be used as an excuse for poor personal skill/performance.

I guess you could do that, if you wanted to eliminate the skill of list construction and understanding the metagame. But the logistics of such an event would be borderline impossible to accomplish, and if you're going that route you might as well remove the randomness factor and give each player the same lists to use (playing both sides of each game so it isn't mirror matches).

Again... sports teams do play their 2nd and 3rd string players when its not a competition. It lets the players on their team get game time who normally wouldn't, and puts the game more back into balance, because a 0-100 game isn't fun for any participant or audience. And its only sabotage if you don't play the objective. If you refuse to take objectives, or fire at your opponent, yes, you missed the point. but if you bring 2-3 more squads of tactical marines and 1 less las-pred, you are hardly so crippled you can't even play anymore.
And as noted, it also lets you practice high stakes situations/maneuvers you are more likely to see when you are bringing your tournament list to a tournament.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Again... sports teams do play their 2nd and 3rd string players when its not a competition. It lets the players on their team get game time who normally wouldn't, and puts the game more back into balance, because a 0-100 game isn't fun for any participant or audience.

Not really true. Teams put in their reserves to get those reserves some practice and protect their key players from injury, but they only do it once the game is clearly decided in their favor and the chances of losing are zero no matter how many of their best players are sitting on the bench. Making the game more "balanced" is not in any way the goal because if there's any uncertainty about their chances of winning they're going to keep their best players in until the game is decided.

And its only sabotage if you don't play the objective. If you refuse to take objectives, or fire at your opponent, yes, you missed the point. but if you bring 2-3 more squads of tactical marines and 1 less las-pred, you are hardly so crippled you can't even play anymore.
And as noted, it also lets you practice high stakes situations/maneuvers you are more likely to see when you are bringing your tournament list to a tournament.

Building a list that is weaker than optimal is exactly identical to refusing to take an objective or "forgetting" to shoot with a unit. List building is part of the game just like any other part, and deliberately making poor decisions there is not competing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
I didn't say craft an un-winnable list, but craft a list where you have to play tactically to win. Play-down, not dead.

Still not competition. It's like a football team deciding that they want more of a challenge and deliberately fumbling the ball to the other team. You'd never expect to see that in a competitive football game, because sabotaging yourself is not competition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
I think I would very much like participating in a 40K tournament in which for every game played you are asigned a randomly chosen list (from a pool of pre-composed lists) to play a single scenario repeatedly, and overall results of a tournament are created by comparison of relative performances of players, with highest scores of each round being a benchmark point. This way list building is out of the scope and can no longer be used as an excuse for poor personal skill/performance.

I guess you could do that, if you wanted to eliminate the skill of list construction and understanding the metagame. But the logistics of such an event would be borderline impossible to accomplish, and if you're going that route you might as well remove the randomness factor and give each player the same lists to use (playing both sides of each game so it isn't mirror matches).

Removing randomness from 40K generates entirely different gameplay experience and changes battle-plans and flow of the game entirely. Tried that quite a lot of times - mostly during scratch building rules for new homebrew units. In times of internet forums and netlisting, "skill of listbuilding" doesn't really exist in the first place, so my solutions doesn't remove anything other than personal illusion of players playing strong lists and thinking they are skilled tacticians. Mirror matched solution is good, but it generates a lot smaller scope of skill and depth of game system understaning required to win such contest - you are basically measuring ability to understand core rule set and one particular list. When you must collect points playing everything ranging from weak but plentiful horde armies to superheavy detachment then you can pretty much "sort" players by their skill and knowledge of entire 40K.

And yes, I agree that logistics of such event would be very hard even for GW themselves, but this is IMHO the only format of REAL skill testing tournament in such game as 40K. As long as there are no tournaments like this I don't intend to be bothered by attending any.

nou wrote:
And yes, you are in part working collaboratively with your opponents to solve a problem, as you are giving eachother informations during "auction" phase.

That's not collaboration, that's competition. You are giving them information, but it's information that is chosen to maximize your chances of winning. Collaboration and altruism have nothing to do with it.

you can have an evening in which you did not won a single deal and yet be clearly the best bridge player at the table and your opponents clearly acknowledge this.

I honestly don't see how this is possible. Assuming you play enough games for the random variation of the cards to average out a player who loses every game can't possibly be the best player. If they were the best player they'd win instead of losing.

What I described above in relation to 40K solitaires is straight adaptation of that mindset and one of the very few that can give a real mental challange in a game system as ill-suited to any serious play as 40K is. But we already discussed this a couple of times and you seem to be continuously unable to understand what I'm describing.

You're right, I don't understand. I don't understand how you can talk about having a mental challenge in a "game" where you control both sides and can make them do whatever you want to create the outcome you want to achieve. What exactly is there to solve? You don't have to anticipate the other side's strategy, deceive them into taking your bait and opening up a game-winning opportunity, etc. You just decide what the outcome is going to be and then push models around the table until you're satisfied with it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
Again... sports teams do play their 2nd and 3rd string players when its not a competition. It lets the players on their team get game time who normally wouldn't, and puts the game more back into balance, because a 0-100 game isn't fun for any participant or audience.

Not really true. Teams put in their reserves to get those reserves some practice and protect their key players from injury, but they only do it once the game is clearly decided in their favor and the chances of losing are zero no matter how many of their best players are sitting on the bench. Making the game more "balanced" is not in any way the goal because if there's any uncertainty about their chances of winning they're going to keep their best players in until the game is decided.

And its only sabotage if you don't play the objective. If you refuse to take objectives, or fire at your opponent, yes, you missed the point. but if you bring 2-3 more squads of tactical marines and 1 less las-pred, you are hardly so crippled you can't even play anymore.
And as noted, it also lets you practice high stakes situations/maneuvers you are more likely to see when you are bringing your tournament list to a tournament.

Building a list that is weaker than optimal is exactly identical to refusing to take an objective or "forgetting" to shoot with a unit. List building is part of the game just like any other part, and deliberately making poor decisions there is not competing.

Thank you for putting it like that.

It isn't my fault you're not willing to put in the effort to make a competitive list. You can scream "netlist" all you want like people that screamed "netdeck" in Yugioh and MTG do, but nevertheless you're the one making bad decisions, not me. I'm not even sure why it would make you feel any better. "My opponent only won because they brought cheese". That's right, champ, tell yourself that.

Building a list that is weaker than optimal is exactly identical to refusing to take an objective or "forgetting" to shoot with a unit. List building is part of the game just like any other part, and deliberately making poor decisions there is not competing.

Holy gak. I don't think I've ever read something so arrogant and condescending before, and I've been here a long time. This mindset is pure toxic. You can be "competitive" without essentially saying "Only take the most 100% optional thing or feth off"

nou wrote:
Removing randomness from 40K generates entirely different gameplay experience and changes battle-plans and flow of the game entirely.

Yes, but I'm not talking about removing randomness from the game itself, only in your proposed list selection method. You set out a series of fixed game tables with specific armies and missions. AvB, CvD, EvF (using multiple copies of each table for larger events), with all of the armies being as different as you like. Each player then plays each of the six armies, playing both sides of each table, and totals up their win/loss record for final scoring. That removes the chance for a player to randomly get better armies given to them compared to their opponents and puts everyone on the same level. Each player has played the same missions with the same armies, so it's purely a test of on-table skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Holy gak. I don't think I've ever read something so arrogant and condescending before, and I've been here a long time. This mindset is pure toxic. You can be "competitive" without essentially saying "Only take the most 100% optional thing or feth off"

You're right, you can't be competitive. Anything less than 100% is playing less competitively. I leave it up to you to decide whether playing competitively is an appealing goal or not. You are of course free to decide that it's not your thing and play with a less-competitive approach.

 Peregrine wrote:


Building a list that is weaker than optimal is exactly identical to refusing to take an objective or "forgetting" to shoot with a unit. List building is part of the game just like any other part, and deliberately making poor decisions there is not competing.

But who is the better player, the one who can ONLY win with Best tier list, or the one who overcomes Best tier with Good tier? and are you really that good taking best tier and beating mediocre-to-bad tier? It is actually less skilled to always bring the heavy artillery when less is sufficient.

In your area, if its tournament grade all the time, and no new players ever show up, then i get why you need to bring your A game every time, and doing any less is sabotaging yourself. But as much as its "part of the game" its 1 part of a very multi-part game

 Peregrine wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
Again... sports teams do play their 2nd and 3rd string players when its not a competition. It lets the players on their team get game time who normally wouldn't, and puts the game more back into balance, because a 0-100 game isn't fun for any participant or audience.

Not really true. Teams put in their reserves to get those reserves some practice and protect their key players from injury, but they only do it once the game is clearly decided in their favor and the chances of losing are zero no matter how many of their best players are sitting on the bench. Making the game more "balanced" is not in any way the goal because if there's any uncertainty about their chances of winning they're going to keep their best players in until the game is decided.

And an addition here: putting in the reserves is usually less fun for the audience to watch, not more fun. Not only is it a very clear sign that the outcome of the game has been decided and there's little point in watching anymore, it's usually accompanied by a boring style of play as both teams are content to just run the clock out and end the game without really trying to accomplish anything. Run straight up the middle three times, punt. Run straight up the middle three times, punt. Repeat until finally time runs out and the game ends with neither team making any effort to run anything but the most basic plays. I don't think this happening in 40k would add anything of value to the experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pumaman1 wrote:
But who is the better player, the one who can ONLY win with Best tier list, or the one who overcomes Best tier with Good tier?

The player who doesn't make the stupid decision to sabotage themselves with a weaker list in an attempt to prove how "skilled" they are. The best player is the one who makes optimal decisions at every point in the game, including during list construction (which is part of the game).

 Peregrine wrote:
Not really true. Teams put in their reserves to get those reserves some practice and protect their key players from injury, but they only do it once the game is clearly decided in their favor and the chances of losing are zero no matter how many of their best players are sitting on the bench. Making the game more "balanced" is not in any way the goal because if there's any uncertainty about their chances of winning they're going to keep their best players in until the game is decided.

You must not watch the NFL. Week 17 (the last week of the regular season) is notorious for teams "resting" their regular starters for the whole game and even say that they're going to do so well before the game starts.

Teams that rest their starters in week 17 are doing so because they are already in the playoffs so losing the game doesn't matter.

It does show that in pro football that every game is not played with the A++ roster but ultimately can be argued against by simply pointing out that the team is still going to the playoffs where they will always field their A++ roster.

Now what this is really showing, as these threads always show, is that there is a giant gulf between power gaming and those that are 100% into power gaming, and storytelling gaming, where the two sides will never reconcile with each other.

 Peregrine wrote:

The player who doesn't make the stupid decision to sabotage themselves with a weaker list in an attempt to prove how "skilled" they are. The best player is the one who makes optimal decisions at every point in the game, including during list construction (which is part of the game).

I mean, if we are going to go fencing, and you bring a gun, yeah, you overpowered me easily, but you didn't demonstrate skill.
OR if they other players faction only has access to 8" long rusty rapiers, but you have 24" long perfect condition steel ones (codex discrepancy) there is nothing the other player can do to bring a 100% list in your eyes, but they are bad because they don't buy your faction to play 100% in your eyes? you won't agree, but you do mistake force and skill. And i dare say in general you would be a seal clubber. If you are surrounded in seal clubbers, then you are doing what it takes to compete. but if you have new/novice/developing players, and keep applying the club, you don't develop, and they have a bad time

 auticus wrote:
Teams that rest their starters in week 17 are doing so because they are already in the playoffs so losing the game doesn't matter.

It does show that in pro football that every game is not played with the A++ roster but ultimately can be argued against by simply pointing out that the team is still going to the playoffs where they will always field their A++ roster.

Now what this is really showing, as these threads always show, is that there is a giant gulf between power gaming and those that are 100% into power gaming, and storytelling gaming, where the two sides will never reconcile with each other.

This is probably the most accurate statement here. We have seen everything from "We don't really care and play a story" to "I want to play a decent list but not ignore fluff" to "Anything less than 100% optimal isn't real competitive, who cares about the fluff/background winning is all that matters"

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The player who doesn't make the stupid decision to sabotage themselves with a weaker list in an attempt to prove how "skilled" they are. The best player is the one who makes optimal decisions at every point in the game, including during list construction (which is part of the game).

I mean, if we are going to go fencing, and you bring a gun, yeah, you overpowered me easily, but you didn't demonstrate skill.
OR if they other players faction only has access to 8" long rusty rapiers, but you have 24" long perfect condition steel ones (codex discrepancy) there is nothing the other player can do to bring a 100% list in your eyes, but they are bad because they don't buy your faction to play 100% in your eyes? you won't agree, but you do mistake force and skill. And i dare say in general you would be a seal clubber. If you are surrounded in seal clubbers, then you are doing what it takes to compete. but if you have new/novice/developing players, and keep applying the club, you don't develop, and they have a bad time

Your comparison would be significantly less stupid if you were allowed to bring guns to a fencing tournament.

That being the case I would advise to not try to argue with a die hard power gamer if you aren't into that side of the game. No one will change anyone else's mind.

The best you can do is accept that power gaming is indeed the default of tabletop gaming in today's culture, and to work on finding people that don't want to be power gamers 24/7. We have a few now in our campaign group that go to the LVO and adepticon and compete but also know how to dial it back and enjoy campaigns too.

Its not a huge group but I don't think it needs to be.

Trying to convince a die hard power gamer in today's esport culture that narrative gaming / storytelling gaming is viable is like whizzing into the wind. You're going to get rained on. And its not water.

it is more reasonable to expect a competitive player to tone their list down given two people who brought a 2000 point list because neither player can bring different models, but the more competitive player can bring fewer points.

You know, because the models are physical objects, and it's much easier for the one guy to play with fewer of them than it is for the other guy to pull more competitive stuff fully assembled and painted out of his ass, or any other orifice.

You are suggesting that two people who would rather spend the few hours they have a week to play a match that could be close are somehow less...honest? Honorable? Than a guy who would rather play for half an hour and spend the rest of the time basking in that glorious dopamine high of winning.

In the theoretical, floaty world of the internet, CAAC is as much of a crime as over-competitive WAAC, and it's equally reasonably to expect someone to "up their game" as it is to expect someone to tone down.

in the real, physical, actual world where everyone lives and plays 40k, models are real pieces of plastic that obey newtonian laws of matter (I.e., are not often in the habit of popping spontaneously into existence) and the actual frequency of overcompetitive players running off newer or returning players by stomping them with netlists is far, far higher than the frequency of CAAC jerks running off poor, oppressed competitive players who just want to bring their A game and challenge their towering intellects with honest, honorable competition.

Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
And yes, you are in part working collaboratively with your opponents to solve a problem, as you are giving eachother informations during "auction" phase.

That's not collaboration, that's competition. You are giving them information, but it's information that is chosen to maximize your chances of winning. Collaboration and altruism have nothing to do with it.

you can have an evening in which you did not won a single deal and yet be clearly the best bridge player at the table and your opponents clearly acknowledge this.

I honestly don't see how this is possible. Assuming you play enough games for the random variation of the cards to average out a player who loses every game can't possibly be the best player. If they were the best player they'd win instead of losing.

What I described above in relation to 40K solitaires is straight adaptation of that mindset and one of the very few that can give a real mental challange in a game system as ill-suited to any serious play as 40K is. But we already discussed this a couple of times and you seem to be continuously unable to understand what I'm describing.

You're right, I don't understand. I don't understand how you can talk about having a mental challenge in a "game" where you control both sides and can make them do whatever you want to create the outcome you want to achieve. What exactly is there to solve? You don't have to anticipate the other side's strategy, deceive them into taking your bait and opening up a game-winning opportunity, etc. You just decide what the outcome is going to be and then push models around the table until you're satisfied with it.

Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
Removing randomness from 40K generates entirely different gameplay experience and changes battle-plans and flow of the game entirely.

Yes, but I'm not talking about removing randomness from the game itself, only in your proposed list selection method. You set out a series of fixed game tables with specific armies and missions. AvB, CvD, EvF (using multiple copies of each table for larger events), with all of the armies being as different as you like. Each player then plays each of the six armies, playing both sides of each table, and totals up their win/loss record for final scoring. That removes the chance for a player to randomly get better armies given to them compared to their opponents and puts everyone on the same level. Each player has played the same missions with the same armies, so it's purely a test of on-table skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Holy gak. I don't think I've ever read something so arrogant and condescending before, and I've been here a long time. This mindset is pure toxic. You can be "competitive" without essentially saying "Only take the most 100% optional thing or feth off"

You're right, you can't be competitive. Anything less than 100% is playing less competitively. I leave it up to you to decide whether playing competitively is an appealing goal or not. You are of course free to decide that it's not your thing and play with a less-competitive approach.

@first part: you should really try to learn Bridge as it is impossible to argue with you about something you have no clue about... Number of possible bridge hands is larger than 600bln, there is no way that randomness "evens out" during a single casual evening. Bridge tournaments provide rigid deals to all players to solve simultanously in each round. All other points you make in this part are just other misconceptions about Bridge, but it is understandable, as you are not Bridge player and are unwilling to even study wikipedia article about it or have an actual open mind on what I'm trying to picture here.

@second part: yes, I missunderstood your "remove randomness" here, but pretty much the same answer applies: the more you limit possible encounters the narrower "data sample" about player's understanding of 40K you'll gather, but your "finall score sorting" will be more acurate within the limitations of the scope. The question here is how much 40K skill is in the core rules and how much within different codexes/factions interactions and knowledge about them and how much exactly list draw from "tier pools" would alter "ideal" results. Such format could be organised in couple of different ways and for large number of participants having tiered pools of randomly drawn lists would be a bit more practical than providing 100 of identical armies... But that is purely academic excercise nevertheless.

This is yet another example that your POV on "why to play games" is limited to "rigid skill testing" and games are sorted only by ability to measure skill, however it might be defined, as long as it is strictly deterministic. I must say, I find this attitude puzzling...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The player who doesn't make the stupid decision to sabotage themselves with a weaker list in an attempt to prove how "skilled" they are. The best player is the one who makes optimal decisions at every point in the game, including during list construction (which is part of the game).

I mean, if we are going to go fencing, and you bring a gun, yeah, you overpowered me easily, but you didn't demonstrate skill.
OR if they other players faction only has access to 8" long rusty rapiers, but you have 24" long perfect condition steel ones (codex discrepancy) there is nothing the other player can do to bring a 100% list in your eyes, but they are bad because they don't buy your faction to play 100% in your eyes? you won't agree, but you do mistake force and skill. And i dare say in general you would be a seal clubber. If you are surrounded in seal clubbers, then you are doing what it takes to compete. but if you have new/novice/developing players, and keep applying the club, you don't develop, and they have a bad time

Your comparison would be significantly less stupid if you were allowed to bring guns to a fencing tournament.

It represents his access to something i don't have and cannot have an answer to.. and i guess you stopped reading from there with the follow up rapier v rapier.. but yeah, feth me right?
But it's why i started with a definition of what is "Competing" and part of it is a contest. if it is no contest, you aren't competing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[quote=the_scotsman 750282 9826077 null

In the theoretical, floaty world of the internet, CAAC is as much of a crime as over-competitive WAAC, and it's equally reasonably to expect someone to "up their game" as it is to expect someone to tone down.