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.

While I'm personally a strong supporter of "if there's a winner, its competitive" I do think there are aspects to game rules that can make it better suited to what I like to refer to as "cinematic" play. A lot of this, I think comes from elements like what an army consists of and how it is able to interact with the table.

For example, Warmachine's biggest issues with playing in a more narrative manner is just that models don't interact with terrain well. The game has fantastic precision in its rules, but that means that a forest in the wrong place can shut an army down and in general any sort of veriticallity is best ignored. I will say that theme forces as of late have done a nice job restoring cohesion to force construction though and making tournament armies feel more narrative than the hodgepodge of MK2.

I will concede that 40k does some things that make it more suited to a cinematic game. There are a lot of highly abstracted interactions that allow models to be placed somewhat freer. The sloppy nature allows players to position a little more for style and play on boards that are a lot more decorative in nature.

Batman is a game in which I've long felt the rules interfere with its attempts to create a cinematic experience. Their scenario system helps, but you really need to be conscious of how little models move to keep models from getting stuck on terrain. 2nd Edition improves this a lot, but its an example of a game with a lot of highly cinematic elements that can break down due to terrain interactions. Malifaux is often in the same boat.

For me, the game that best blends cinematic gameplay with competitive precision is probably Infinity. A lot of it is just that models aren't limited to a single move in a turn, so its easier to interact with terrain at the cost of additional orders. It requires more communication between players to keep things precise, but its a good mix of styles in my experience.

I have to agree that in reality CAAC players are more of an internet boogeyman. In theory as The_Scotsman say they are equally bad as WAAC players. But in reality they aren't as common.

And I say this living in Spain, the country of CAAC players.

 Galas wrote:
I have to agree that in reality CAAC players are more of an internet boogeyman. In theory as The_Scotsman say they are equally bad as WAAC players. But in reality they aren't as common.

And I say this living in Spain, the country of CAAC players.

My theory for this is that they tend to die off naturally by forming tiny cliques, getting more and more casual until they write their own entirely homebrew game system and nobody can ever join them, like an inbreeding population of animals. I'm familiar with a couple groups in my area that did this, I went and played with one once, brought my all-metal Vostroyan guard army with all the goofy equipment (7th ed when they were crap) and got told to not come back because they didn't like that I was spamming leman russes. I had three, all battlecannon/lascannon, which in 7th were utterly useless.

WAAC players tend to be solo, and bop from group to group trying to find more people who don't know about their gak. A cancer vs a deadly genetic disease.

 pumaman1 wrote:

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.

Wayniac wrote:

 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"

"We don't really care and play a story"
"I want to play a decent list but not ignore fluff"
<< I occupy the space between these. I don't care about fluff and I don't care about having everything the best if I can form a cohesive force with many tools.
"Anything less than 100% optimal isn't real competitive, who cares about the fluff/background winning is all that matters"

Just on the idea of sports teams, in soccer and rugby if a team is playing a vastly inferior team (usually a cup match where they can play teams in lower divisions) they will very much run a reserve team. Not only to avoid injury to its first choicers but to give the second stringers a chance in a competitive environment and see how players will react to that.

I don't think it is a stretch of an analogy to apply that to wargames, why not play a weaker list to test yourself (as the sports teams are testing their depth)?

Then again I suppose I find comparing the contest in Games Workshop games to professional sport absolutely absurd in the first place possibly due to not having the "competitive mindset"!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're damn right I stopped reading beyond that because NOBODY has access to a gun in a fencing tournament but everyone has access to the same models in 40k.

Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad for even making it.

Ah classy. Making the internet what it is since 1990, ignoring full arguments because metaphor is hard.

And everyone's" equal access" to the same models means everyone run the same identical 100% optimized list, forget playing a different faction. Not every faction, has equal strength, and not everyone has "the best" factions models. so no, the average player does not have equal access. Unless they have very great wealth, and can buy multiple of most new units just in case later this edition, or editions later it becomes optimal.

 pumaman1 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're damn right I stopped reading beyond that because NOBODY has access to a gun in a fencing tournament but everyone has access to the same models in 40k.

Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad for even making it.

Ah classy. Making the internet what it is since 1990, ignoring full arguments because metaphor is hard.

And everyone's" equal access" to the same models means everyone run the same identical 100% optimized list, forget playing a different faction. Not every faction, has equal strength, and not everyone has "the best" factions models. so no, the average player does not have equal access. Unless they have very great wealth, and can buy multiple of most new units just in case later this edition, or editions later it becomes optimal.

Part of gittin gud in 40k is ignoring what you like in favor for what is best and being skilled at selling existing models to get new models to stay on top of the meta.

 auticus wrote:
Part of gittin gud in 40k is ignoring what you like in favor for what is best and being skilled at selling existing models to get new models to stay on top of the meta.

How about improving your performance using the models that you like? Who decides what units/models are "best"? My answer is the guy(s) who win all the time. And when they disagree then that means that there really isn't any "best".

Your answer is money makes the difference since you are required to buy new models to stay on top of the curve. My answer is the player makes the models perform and that if you like a certain model/unit then you can work to make it "gud".

Oh 40k is absolutely pay to win. No question.

I've fought this battle for many many years. You'll never change it. Power gamers are not going to take mathematically weaker armies to prove that they are good, because they know that they are playing the game on a harder difficulty than the other power gamers who will still be playing on easy with stacked lists. Their mindset is likely 100% like they are running a pro sports team, and they aren't going to take a 2nd string team to a tournament when they have access to the new england patriots.

As to who determines what is best and people disagreeing? Look at any of the big tournaments. You'll notice that most of the top lists are very similar. There is usually a very tiny handful of root builds and some minor variations.

 auticus wrote:
Oh 40k is absolutely pay to win. No question.

I've fought this battle for many many years. You'll never change it. Power gamers are not going to take mathematically weaker armies to prove that they are good, because they know that they are playing the game on a harder difficulty than the other power gamers who will still be playing on easy with stacked lists. Their mindset is likely 100% like they are running a pro sports team, and they aren't going to take a 2nd string team to a tournament when they have access to the new england patriots.

who lost. btw

Replace that with the philadelphia eagles then if you like the point is if you have access to a top tier team freely, power gamers are always going to take the top tier team.

They aren't going to try to play Madden with the Miami Dolphins or the Dallas Cowboys or the Cleveland Browns to prove a point.

In 40k they aren't going to take a 2nd or 3rd tier army to prove a point either.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Oh 40k is absolutely pay to win. No question.

I've fought this battle for many many years. You'll never change it. Power gamers are not going to take mathematically weaker armies to prove that they are good, because they know that they are playing the game on a harder difficulty than the other power gamers who will still be playing on easy with stacked lists. Their mindset is likely 100% like they are running a pro sports team, and they aren't going to take a 2nd string team to a tournament when they have access to the new england patriots.

who lost. btw

That's why you won't see anyone bring the Patriots in tournaments anymore. They're garbage tier now. Sell that stuff and get some Eagles, n00b.

 auticus wrote:
Replace that with the philadelphia eagles then if you like the point is if you have access to a top tier team freely, power gamers are always going to take the top tier team.

They aren't going to try to play Madden with the Miami Dolphins or the Dallas Cowboys or the Cleveland Browns to prove a point.

In 40k they aren't going to take a 2nd or 3rd tier army to prove a point either.

But surely if you win Madden with the Cleveland Browns (or even some mid tier team, I don't follow the sport) you are undoubtedly the best? Unless it is just not possible to do so, in which case aren't we ultimately admitting it's all about the list building? And when everyone brings the same list it's largely about the dice?

All this does is re-confirm my opinion that GW games are no real test of skill (in game) and never have been once you get past total noob stage. At which point, why play them? To tell a story maybe?

 auticus wrote:
Replace that with the philadelphia eagles then if you like the point is if you have access to a top tier team freely, power gamers are always going to take the top tier team.

They aren't going to try to play Madden with the Miami Dolphins or the Dallas Cowboys or the Cleveland Browns to prove a point.

In 40k they aren't going to take a 2nd or 3rd tier army to prove a point either.

There were 500 or so people at LVO. How many do you think switched factions for the tournament? I find it pretty hard to pick the best faction when there are codexes coming out multiple times a month, sell my army, and paint up a whole new one.

You might enjoy this fantasy strawman to attack competitive players, but aside from a small portion of players willing to do it you're also ignoring the steps that GW has taken that have absolutely punished those taking that direction. Anyone got storm ravens for sale?

Daedalus81 wrote:

"We don't really care and play a story"
"I want to play a decent list but not ignore fluff"
<< I occupy the space between these. I don't care about fluff and I don't care about having everything the best if I can form a cohesive force with many tools.
"Anything less than 100% optimal isn't real competitive, who cares about the fluff/background winning is all that matters"

Almost everyone does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

My theory for this is that they tend to die off naturally by forming tiny cliques, getting more and more casual until they write their own entirely homebrew game system and nobody can ever join them, like an inbreeding population of animals. I'm familiar with a couple groups in my area that did this, I went and played with one once, brought my all-metal Vostroyan guard army with all the goofy equipment (7th ed when they were crap) and got told to not come back because they didn't like that I was spamming leman russes. I had three, all battlecannon/lascannon, which in 7th were utterly useless.

I assume you won your game? Groups formed around the idea that they don't care about winning tend to get very upset when they lose.

So funny the people here who would play basketball with their 8 year old children, and just charge and dunk on them, and yell in your face, because "best players use best tactics, git gud."
or you just dunking on a "child" and powergaming a "child" doesn't take any talent.

There is no fantasy strawman and I'm certainly not attacking tournament power gamers.

Pretty much everyone I've talked to has talked at length of the final tables and how the armies were pretty much all same-ish.

The final game was a mirror list for the most part where the winner wrote the list for the guy that lost.

How many switched factions for the LVO? No idea. I know locally the tournament team that went came back and a good number of them have their armies for sale right now and are building new armies from what was king at LVO.

I've heard that is a common occurrence. Enough to form the opinion anyhow coupled with my own decade long experience as a powergaming tournament player that went to several GTs a year. I know when I was a powergaming GT attendee, I switched armies regularly as did my teammates and most of our opponents as well. I have an entire downstairs of my house filled with a solid dozen full armies from the past that I just haven't sold that I hold on to.

Of the 500 or so LVO attendees, only a fraction are the git gud pro sports players. Many of them make it to the final tables. The guys going for fun of course aren't taking the top meta lists, but neither are they winning the LVO and are likely not going to be on dakka or bols or anywhere else telling people to min max 100% of the time or you aren't really competing.

 Tokhuah wrote:
The only reason why I did not vote for the first option is that the X word is racist.

How high are you right now exactly?

 pumaman1 wrote:
So funny the people here who would play basketball with their 8 year old children, and just charge and dunk on them, and yell in your face, because "best players use best tactics, git gud."
or you just dunking on a "child" and powergaming a "child" doesn't take any talent.

Wait are you implying that casual players are children?

I don't see how competitive players can be ruining the game.

As for faction switching - uh... yeah? If you are serious about doing well in tournaments there is no way you are sitting on one army.

I mean we like to say how 40k is a complete rip off - and perhaps it is - but active tournament participation is not cheap.

Maybe I am mistaken, but unless you live in Vegas simply attending the LVO must cost hundreds of dollars (internal flight, 2-3 nights in a hotel, food and beer money etc).

I don't think people who go to many tournaments are the same as people who go "right, got my 2k points sprayed and dry brushed, I don't expect to have to buy another model for 4 years".

 Desubot wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
So funny the people here who would play basketball with their 8 year old children, and just charge and dunk on them, and yell in your face, because "best players use best tactics, git gud."
or you just dunking on a "child" and powergaming a "child" doesn't take any talent.

Wait are you implying that casual players are children?

In terms of models collected, experience with the game, knowledge of all units capabilities/threats beyond their own codex, etc, maybe. Old time casuals not at all, that's the choice they made to prioritize fun for both players over the W, but many "casuals" are just new or developing players (in my anecdotal experience over 5 years)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
I don't see how competitive players can be ruining the game.

As for faction switching - uh... yeah? If you are serious about doing well in tournaments there is no way you are sitting on one army.

I mean we like to say how 40k is a complete rip off - and perhaps it is - but active tournament participation is not cheap.

Maybe I am mistaken, but unless you live in Vegas simply attending the LVO must cost hundreds of dollars (internal flight, 2-3 nights in a hotel, food and beer money etc).

I don't think people who go to many tournaments are the same as people who go "right, got my 2k points sprayed and dry brushed, I don't expect to have to buy another model for 4 years".

Tournaments are absolutely for that level/kind of play.. but there is the other 85% of the time..

 pumaman1 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're damn right I stopped reading beyond that because NOBODY has access to a gun in a fencing tournament but everyone has access to the same models in 40k.

Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad for even making it.

Ah classy. Making the internet what it is since 1990, ignoring full arguments because metaphor is hard.

And everyone's" equal access" to the same models means everyone run the same identical 100% optimized list, forget playing a different faction. Not every faction, has equal strength, and not everyone has "the best" factions models. so no, the average player does not have equal access. Unless they have very great wealth, and can buy multiple of most new units just in case later this edition, or editions later it becomes optimal.

As long as you choose the correct faction and buy models that have been consistent in power, then everyone has equal access. That's a hard truth. You can deny it all you want.

That's why competitive players are necessary to find the imbalances in the game. So there isn't any choosing of the wrong army.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're damn right I stopped reading beyond that because NOBODY has access to a gun in a fencing tournament but everyone has access to the same models in 40k.

Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad for even making it.

Ah classy. Making the internet what it is since 1990, ignoring full arguments because metaphor is hard.

And everyone's" equal access" to the same models means everyone run the same identical 100% optimized list, forget playing a different faction. Not every faction, has equal strength, and not everyone has "the best" factions models. so no, the average player does not have equal access. Unless they have very great wealth, and can buy multiple of most new units just in case later this edition, or editions later it becomes optimal.

As long as you choose the correct faction and buy models that have been consistent in power, then everyone has equal access. That's a hard truth. You can deny it all you want.

That's why competitive players are necessary to find the imbalances in the game. So there isn't any choosing of the wrong army.

My heroes. You're right, I didn't need the dozens of new players I've lost over the years after they get frustrated getting curbstomped week after week by people who have no interest in helping them learn the game.

Yeah, I love this mentality of putting the ultra-competitive players as some sort of hobby heroes that we all praise because they are fixing the game GW don't want to fix!
I'm sure when a guy brings his Riptide-Wing to the scalation league at his local shop ,of 16 people where 9 are new players, is just because he wants to make a point towards GW, to make a better game for everybody!

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're damn right I stopped reading beyond that because NOBODY has access to a gun in a fencing tournament but everyone has access to the same models in 40k.

Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad for even making it.

Ah classy. Making the internet what it is since 1990, ignoring full arguments because metaphor is hard.

And everyone's" equal access" to the same models means everyone run the same identical 100% optimized list, forget playing a different faction. Not every faction, has equal strength, and not everyone has "the best" factions models. so no, the average player does not have equal access. Unless they have very great wealth, and can buy multiple of most new units just in case later this edition, or editions later it becomes optimal.

As long as you choose the correct faction and buy models that have been consistent in power, then everyone has equal access. That's a hard truth. You can deny it all you want.

That's why competitive players are necessary to find the imbalances in the game. So there isn't any choosing of the wrong army.

My heroes. You're right, I didn't need the dozens of new players I've lost over the years after they get frustrated getting curbstomped week after week by people who have no interest in helping them learn the game.

I don't want to play against someone that can't be bothered to do their best and do the math for it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


My heroes. You're right, I didn't need the dozens of new players I've lost over the years after they get frustrated getting curbstomped week after week by people who have no interest in helping them learn the game.

I don't want to play against someone that can't be bothered to do their best and do the math for it.

This post epitomizes what the anti-competitive crowd are heralding. Especially in light of Scotman's point.

 auticus wrote:
Replace that with the philadelphia eagles then if you like the point is if you have access to a top tier team freely, power gamers are always going to take the top tier team.

They aren't going to try to play Madden with the Miami Dolphins or the Dallas Cowboys or the Cleveland Browns to prove a point.

In 40k they aren't going to take a 2nd or 3rd tier army to prove a point either.

I basically do this in other games (more on games based on skill). I'll equip a gun that's considered terrible then use it to get top scorer to prove a point. In 40k though that cannot work... i've seen armies stand still (no joke, never even moving a model) and beating overpriced bad units.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Tournaments are absolutely for that level/kind of play.. but there is the other 85% of the time..

And some of that 85% of the time is also for serious competitive play. Why do people keep acting like tournament-style games must be the exception to the rule, some kind of special event that you do occasionally but never the default style of play?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pumaman1 wrote:
So funny the people here who would play basketball with their 8 year old children, and just charge and dunk on them, and yell in your face, because "best players use best tactics, git gud."
or you just dunking on a "child" and powergaming a "child" doesn't take any talent.

No, because nobody playing basketball against their small children would see that as a competitive game. Are you honestly comparing less-skilled 40k players to small children who are mentally and physically incapable of success in their chosen game/sport?

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, I love this mentality of putting the ultra-competitive players as some sort of hobby heroes that we all praise because they are fixing the game GW don't want to fix!
I'm sure when a guy brings his Riptide-Wing to the scalation league at his local shop ,of 16 people where 9 are new players, is just because he wants to make a point towards GW, to make a better game for everybody!

Well you see these people don't go to shops anymore because nobody would put up with their attitude, so they go onto forums and make up absurd boogeyman (CAAC) and fit the narrative to where they are the hero. Also none of the people here advocating the ultra-competitive are playing eldar, so they're hypocrites by their own logic. Seriously guys, not playing eldar is the exact same as purposely forgetting rules and making bad tactical decisions! /s

I don't think competitiveness is ruining 40k, and I don't think casualness is ruining 40k. 40k has some jank rules and the balance is all over the place, so people making it into a competitive game are going to have a warped mindset. That doesn't mean it can't be competitive, it just changes your perspective on the game. Unfortunately the problem lies with being now being unable to see other perspectives. Even GW says 40k and AoS have '3 ways to play!' in their books.

Its pushing toy soldiers around a miniature battlefield, no matter how competitive you play it. At the end of the day, its a hobby, that people get many things out of. Trying to force your way of enjoying something on someone else just makes you look like a jackoff. And that doesn't mean I'm saying competitive people need to bring weaker lists, in fact I wouldn't even bother those kinds of people for a game in the first place, I'd let them play 40k their own way.