Is competitiveness ruining/ruined 40K?

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.

**Nurglitch**

I'm extremely competitive. However, unless I win completely above-board, fair and square, then I don't really see the point of winning. I don't want my wins to be tainted. I want to own my wins.

**ian**

I agree at the top level there will be small diffrences but the overall theme will be the same.

If your not at the top level it dosnt really matter its simple bring 20-30 dark reapers stick them im wave serpents job done.

Its not that hard to build a good list that can have a big advantage, once you know what units are currently over performing.

This is made much harder when the hobby is more that just playing. It can mean buying lots of new units or complete armys and spending time building and painting.

If list building and wining is the main focus why not play with cut outs, it would be a much more level playing field everybody could just spend there time finding out the best combos after that it would just be about luck and skill.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If i play open play then i am playing 40k just because the focus isnt on wining doant mean its not really 40k

**Eldarsif**

Ultimately the problem is that competitive is a much more solid goalpost than casual. Not really attempting to disparage casual, but casual is such a subjective goalpost that one person's casual is another person's competitive.

All units are attempting to fulfill a role in a game of rock-paper-scissor and when one army's list(fluff or not) is all scissors it gets frustrating no matter what for those who only build their army out of paper.

I say this as someone who has only twice been in tournaments in my 20 years of gaming.

The only fair casual form of game available is one where GW would pre-formed lists for you to follow in scenarios.

**ian**

Nurglitch does above board mean having an equal chance of wining because that dosnt really exisit in 40k

**tneva82**

Ah yes you are the ultimate authority on what can and what can't be counted as 40k.

Actually seeing how 40k came up it's more accurate to say narrative scenario driven is CLOSER to how 40k is "supposed" to be played if there was such a thing as "true 40k"

**ian**

The game dosnt have to be fair in order to play its about you being fair and having empathy for others , at the end of the day this hobby outside of tournements is about groups of people spending time together.

Or have we all just gone so far away from being connected we just want our opponet to only talk whwn nessarcy for the game

**DominayTrix**

ian wrote:
Nurglitch does above board mean having an equal chance of wining because that dosnt really exisit in 40k

Aboveboard typically means honest or legitimate. No cheating, no "gotcha" moments after deciding to play for intent like LVO. An honest win. Whether its tactics, list building, or luck.

**Peregrine**

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes you are the ultimate authority on what can and what can't be counted as 40k.

Actually seeing how 40k came up it's more accurate to say narrative scenario driven is CLOSER to how 40k is "supposed" to be played if there was such a thing as "true 40k"

No, GW is the ultimate authority, and they don't include narrative games as a major element of 40k. It doesn't matter if they throw in an occasional FORGE THE NARRATIVE comment when 95% of the material they publish is competitive-style missions with little or no narrative element. The myth that 40k is "supposed to be" a narrative game is one that is purely invented by certain players.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ian wrote:
The game dosnt have to be fair in order to play its about you being fair and having empathy for others , at the end of the day this hobby outside of tournements is about groups of people spending time together.

Exactly, it's about empathy for others and spending time together. This is why "non-competitive" players should not be selfish and demand that everyone adjust their lists to match the specific models that the "non-competitive" player wants to use. After all, if you have fairness and empathy for others you should not expect the entire burden of making hobby compromises to fall on one player.

**Eldarsif**

ian wrote:
The game dosnt have to be fair in order to play its about you being fair and having empathy for others , at the end of the day this hobby outside of tournements is about groups of people spending time together.

Or have we all just gone so far away from being connected we just want our opponet to only talk whwn nessarcy for the game

Well, when I talk to people playing the game we talk daily gak like the government, housing loans, family, and what movies we last saw while joking about ton of things. That's at least how people connect here locally which could be a cultural thing. I'd rather do that then spend lengthy time discussing how we should organize our armies against each other as we already have a "social contract" which is the GW ruleset and points(no matter how flawed they may be). You buy into a ruleset to avoid deliberations on how a game should be played. I mean, there is nothing stopping a roleplaying group from playing Dungeons and Dragons without touching a dice or a ruleset, but apparently people still buy these books and dice for some reason. It gives everyone a common social contract to go by - which may or may not be flawed, much like any other social contract in real life.

Does no one remember when AoS was released and everyone whinged about not having points to balance things and to play it fair? GW did exactly what many casuals wanted and they got gak for it. AoS didn't pick up until they gave us General's Handbook with point costs and Matched Play rules.

Also, there is nothing stopping you from not playing against the 30 x Dark Reaper person. I avoided Croissant armies like the plague in late 5th and was not worse for wear. You are not entitled to play with anyone just as anyone is not entitled to play with you.

**ian**

If everybody is playing with competive list then i dont have a choice if i want to play the game. Thats the cost of the meta either join them or lose

empathy is about give and take but did you really just say that somebody is selfish because they dont want to play a game when they know they will lose?

Thats not the social contract the rules are there for to try and provide entertainment

I dont think its entertaing to beat somebody when then dont have a chance to win.

I guess some people dont care about that

**Unit1126PLL**

Deadnight wrote:I find myself agreeing with chamberlain quite strongly here.

For the record, I have played tournaments to a reasonably high level, and have always enjoyed them, and very much enjoy and value pick-up-games. I also enjoy narrative games immensely.

I don't think competitiveness is ruining 40k at all. I do think that a focus, particularly on the Internet (by dint of attracting the most vocal and hardcore of us) of competitive-at-all-costs, and a focus on, or refusal, in some cases (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to look beyond 'pick-up-games' and the assumption that this is the one proper way to play does cause some problems in the wider community. I don't know if this is reflective of actual players though across the spectrum, or only in certain spheres.

Gamers tend to be quite conservative in how they game. When a company presents, or when the community interprets a particular format a 'proper way to play', it is quite hard to find people who will willingly deviate. There is a cult of officialdom at play here where we will not deviate from a set of 'standard' missions. To be fair, this has its good points (privateer press' 'organised play' immediately comes to mind) but it can also suffocate experimentation and exploration. I find that gamers can be lazy, or disinterested in putting work into their games, and would rather default. And unfortunately, when there is a game mode viewed as 'default', people usually don't go beyond it. The default mode, as I see it, is the 'pick-up-game'. It's gaming 101. Pragmatism at all costs. And a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make this work. And for all that I enjoy, and value pick up games,I personally don't think sacrificing everything on that altar is worth it all of the time.

I think in general, when it comes to broken combos or whatever ruining the game, there is fault at both sides. I see it as two sides of the exact same coin. Yes, gw (or whoever) should have been more careful. But yes we, as a community, seem only too happy to inflict said problems on our peers with a shrug of the shoulders and an appeal to the authority's of 'yeah well, it's legal', (and to be fair, just because something I said legal doesn't make it right) and a hand waiving away of our own personal responsibility. Sometimes you see it transferred onto others and saying it's their fault - the 'git good' school of 'yeah well, you shouldn't have taken a crappy list, bring a proper list instead'. Or the inverse. Or else blaming the developer - and to be fair, there is a grain of truth there, but yet we ourselves happily play the damned broken stuff into each other too. And then try and justify it. At the risk of invoking Godwyn, we don't let war criminals off the hook because 'they were just following orders', we don't let bigots off the hook for their beliefs because it was written 'in a particular book', why should we let ourselves off the hook for inflicting all the problems of the game on each other?

What bothers me more than anything, and this is just my personal stance, is the competitive-at-all-costs mantra of only accepting the worth of the absolute pinnacle of 'what's good' as being relevant. As a sports fan, it's like saying the only game that matters is the UEFA champions league final. Fair enough, it's important, but there is so much more out there. Dozens of leagues in dozens of countries with all levels from grassroots to semi professional, and national leagues of various standings, whether small or large. And yet each has its adherents and rivalries, and great games and great stories.

Chamberlain, From my point of view, the greatest skill in the game is list-building. But not in the way it's commonly presented i.e. 'List-building-for-advantage' and a focus on the absolute efficiency-value and worth. That is a slippery inverse-slope that only leads to the top of the mountain, and there is very little space up there on the peak. It's quite lonely. Maybe half a dozen lists at any one time? For me, I rather place the value on relative value and worth. It doesn't have to be optimum builds at the peak of their factions abilities (but if that's what folks want, fair play to them. They're not wrong), instead just well matched lists across all points of the power curve. For me, list building is not an absolute, it's not a means of an end as often presented as part of the competitive-at-all-costs approach. For me, it's an aspect of game-building, of crafting interesting forces into themed narrative based scenarios with matched forces that aren't necessarily optimum builds, but rather themed builds to reflect the character of the story/scenario- I wouldn't place baneblades on either side of a flashpoint between skirmishers, for example. I often find games far more interesting when neither side has 'that perfect list' and rather, each must make do as best as they can with what hey have to hand. And I've been playing games long enough to know if Folks can build an optimum list, they can also probably build a 'matched' list, regardless,of where they sit on the power curve. 40k has a huge amount of variety, with things ranging from bikers with chains to city stomping Titans and air power. Not everything works everything else, but the right elements combined makes for a good game. And this I said true across other games too I feel. I'm ok with that. I'm generally ok and ambivalent to a certain level of imbalance because I am happy to apply a social shock absorber, and at least an up front discussion of what I like To play and what kind of game I'm after. (And that's the other thing. Communication is key. If you don't want to play my game, that's totally cool. It won't stop be being polite and friendly towards you.) gw could do a lot better at ensuring their game doesn't have jagged edges. But I'm also willing to put a bit of work in at my end as well to ensure the same thing. I guess I'm lucky I play with a group that's on the same page though.

A good post!

Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
(e.g. Peregrine, who seems to believe that if you're not being competitive you're wrong or deserving of ridicule).

I don't find people deserving of ridicule because they don't play competitively. I've made this clear many times in the past, people like you just keep jumping to the conclusion that anyone who defends competitive play must exclusively defend competitive play. The people I find deserving of ridicule are:

1) CAAC TFGs who scream at you about how you aren't being "casual" enough, despite their level of obsession with the game and insanely strict rules about what lists are acceptable in their personal version of it having absolutely nothing to do with the term "casual" as it is defined in any other context. And CAAC TFGs are inevitably smug s about how "casual" is the one morally acceptable way to play the game, and everyone else is TFG and ruining the hobby.

2) People who make "casual strategy" posts where they propose an idea with a claim that it is good, encounter criticism from people who understand the game better and point out that it isn't an effective strategy, and then fall back on "BUT IT IS CASUAL WHY CANT YOU CASUAL" rather than admit that they were simply wrong about it being a good strategy. IOW, people who don't care about whether or not their strategy advice is good or leads to a better understanding of the game, and post threads for the sole purpose of getting people to agree with them and feed their narcissism.

3) People who assume that if they aren't playing competitively they must be "fluffy" or "casual", even when their lists don't match the fluff well at all. A list with a bunch of random units with random upgrades is seldom a fluffy list, but because it isn't good at winning games people will insist on defending it as "fluffy" and object to any criticism of its choices.

In your case I find you immensely frustrating and wrong because you get stuck on questionable fluff ideas like "I must have exactly X tanks, no more, no less" or making which sponsons your tanks are equipped with an essential part of your fluff, and refuse to change anything about your list no matter how much it hinders your or your opponent's enjoyment of the game. I mean, you're complaining about how your tanks are not fair in a power level system because your fluff does not permit sponsons on them FFS. It's an absurd zero-compromise position to take, especially when half your posts seem to be about how your choices are not working out well for you.

But I am stuck on those ideas because they are my fluff, and I care deeply about it. It's like me saying "What's the best way to play an archer Fighter in 5th Edition DND?" and other people saying "Yeah but barbarian does triple the DPR (damage per round) unless you go 2-handed and then the fighter can go Champion and crit a lot, matching the Barbarian while having a bit more feats, except for rage..." or "Just play a ranger, idiot!" and I'm like "but... I want to play an archer without magic..."

And you can't understand why the number of tanks or sponsons matters for fluff at all? I'm a bit shocked you don't understand that. My Tank Company back in the day, and my Superheavy Company now, have regimental doctrines (not the rule kind, but the fluff kind) that include making max size companies to send to the battlefield wherever and whenever possible, including consolidating tanks from the reserve and other companies to bring the vanguard company to regulation strength. And they don't have the resources to add sponsons on the fly to vehicles - the Magos who tends the enginseer support units is very conservative, and unless it is a repair that is needed, he is unwilling to make changes. All of this and more is written on my fluff bible on Google Drive. I have other sort of "OOC" rules about the regiment as well: for example, if a tank Explodes! during the game, it becomes unsalvageable and needs replacement, meaning I have to repaint it (or at least paint over the name and company markings and run it as a reserve tank for a few games until it earns a name). If it doesn't Explode, then I generally assume it is salvageable, and unless we're playing a campaign game (yes, there's a campaign in my new club and yes it allows my superheavies

), I go ahead and assume the tank was salvaged for the next game. I keep track of PUGs in my fluff as best I can, discussing with my opponent ahead of time about what the narrative for the mission might be (sometimes we just conclude to handwave it, and I discount the game from my fluff, because my opponent doesn't want to be in the narrative or its something irreconcilable).

And believe it or not I do change my list to match my opponent's opinion. That sort of strife between me and my opponent is actually what caused those posts here: I was making changes and my opponents were enjoying the game, but I wasn't. The alternative is for me to enjoy it, or them not to. The third alternative, and as it turns out, the one that works, is find a club that's neither so CAAC that 3 Baneblades is super OP, nor so WAAC that 3 Baneblades aren't tournament competitive enough and they think my lists are suboptimal. I have found a perfect, middle-of-the-road club that is perfectly happy to play against my superheavies and include them in casual narrative club events, because they recognize the narrative validity of the army. And you know what? This means that I also play my other armies (Sisters and Inquisition) at this club too, because once I've found a place I can be comfortable with a list I enjoy, then I'm more willing to mix it up and bring other lists because I don't feel forced to. And yes, the same exacting degree of fluff applies to my not-superheavies as well. Just as an example, my Sororitas Order (the Order of the Luminous Beacon) uses St. Celestine's rules and model as a "Living Saint" named Meridia, Lady of Light (yes, that's a nod to Elder Scrolls

) and the fluff for her is that she is normally Sister Meridia, Oracle of the Emperor, a normal human who transcends to Sainthood when the Order is in danger. This is reflected in gameplay and list-design buy having 6 10-girl squads in my Brigade when there is no Celestine, or 5 10-girl squads and 1 9-girl squad when there is Celestine, because she was briefly transformed by her powers.

Not that I'd expect you to read that or care; I'm sure you'd just be worried about why I'm not running 5-girl Dominion squads.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Exactly. I even made a suggestion or two in his list to at least get Plasma Scions so that he had more bite in the list and offered to help find ways to get Conscript shields but probably wouldn't have listened.

Actually, I dropped the Enginseer and added plasma to the Scions, but I didn't want Conscript Shields for a variety of reasons, including my belief that my Stormhammers didn't really need them (sometimes right, sometimes horribly wrong!), and the fact that none of my tank regiments have many infantry and I wasn't willing to start a whole new regiment in the fluff just for one tournament, among others. But I did end up dropping the techpriest enginseer for plasma on the scions, which worked out okay I think. Honestly, so much of the list hinged on the superheavies it wouldn't really have mattered either way. I ended up going a respectable 4-4, and am happy and content with that score, even though I didn't bring any conscript shields.

**Peregrine**

ian wrote:
empathy is about give and take but did you really just say that somebody is selfish because they dont want to play a game when they know they will lose?

No, I said someone is selfish if they expect the competitive player to do all the work of adjusting the power level of their list because making a competitive list would require painting models that they aren't interested in. It's caring only about their painting preferences, and feeling entitled to have everyone else accommodate them.

I dont think its entertaing to beat somebody when then dont have a chance to win.

I guess some people dont care about that

You're right. Many people don't care about this, bring weak lists that automatically lose, and refuse to get better so that the game is more entertaining.

**Wayniac**

Peregrine wrote:

Exactly, it's about empathy for others and spending time together. This is why "non-competitive" players should not be selfish and demand that everyone adjust their lists to match the specific models that the "non-competitive" player wants to use. After all, if you have fairness and empathy for others you should not expect the entire burden of making hobby compromises to fall on one player.

And, by the same token, "competitive" players should not be selfish and demand that everyone adjust their lists to match the specific models that the "competitive" player wants to use. After all, if you have fairness and empathy for others you should not expect the entire burden of making hobby compromises to fall on one player.

**ian**

You do relise that it takes a fair bit of time to build and paint units not to mention the cost. If your chasing the meta then you have to have a fair bit of money

I agree people shouldnt bring really weak list aswell but i dont think that is as much of a problem as i think people are much less likly to spam weak units

Im glad there are middle of the road clubs out there it gives me hope

**Wayniac**

I guess what bugs me about this roundabout conversation is some people always put the onus on the non-competitive player (which still amounts to "git gud" and compromise what you want out of the game to "git gud" and build a good list, based 100% on mathhammer and min/maxing rather than anything else) and while there are others (myself included sometimes) who feel the opposite, somebody has to in the end agree to compromise, or else it's the players responsibility to just say "You know, you don't want to play a super optimized list, and I really don't want to not play a super optimized list. A game between us wouldn't be fun for either of us" and not play each other.

It seems way too common that people are more than willing to waste time playing a game they won't enjoy (whether that's playing a super optimized list, or a non optimized list) rather than just realize their prospective opponent wants something different out of the game, and decide not to play instead.

**Peregrine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
But I am stuck on those ideas because they are my fluff, and I care deeply about it. It's like me saying "What's the best way to play an archer Fighter in 5th Edition DND?" and other people saying "Yeah but barbarian does triple the DPR (damage per round) unless you go 2-handed and then the fighter can go Champion and crit a lot, matching the Barbarian while having a bit more feats, except for rage..." or "Just play a ranger, idiot!" and I'm like "but... I want to play an archer without magic..."

And my point is that your fluff is both questionable in its accuracy and obsessively specific about trivial details. You aren't just saying "what's the best way to play an archer fighter", you're saying "what's the best way to play an archer fighter with a +1 composite shortbow (+1 strength bonus) and full plate armor and the following specific feats and skill choices" rejecting any advice that isn't exactly the character sheet you posted. For example, rejecting the idea of using a +2 strength bonus on the bow to get more damage, because your fluff requires that it be a +1 bonus.

And you can't understand why the number of tanks or sponsons matters for fluff at all? I'm a bit shocked you don't understand that. My Tank Company back in the day, and my Superheavy Company now, have regimental doctrines (not the rule kind, but the fluff kind) that include making max size companies to send to the battlefield wherever and whenever possible, including consolidating tanks from the reserve and other companies to bring the vanguard company to regulation strength.

Ok. And a 40k game is not a full-scale battle. It's either a skirmish (where a full tank company wouldn't appear), or a "snapshot" of an area of a larger battlefield. A tank company would not be deployed without any support, full strength or not, so a fluff-accurate representation of a full-strength LRBT company in a 2000 point game might be five tanks (total of ~1000 points) and various supporting infantry/aircraft/etc, with the remaining five tanks in the company "off screen" in the part of the battle happening on the adjacent table. This is exactly my point about how obsessively and unreasonably strict your "fluff" requirements are: not only do you have to exactly follow the specific units that make up your company on paper, it has to fight in the exact way you have decided and all of it must appear "on screen" at once.

And they don't have the resources to add sponsons on the fly to vehicles - the Magos who tends the enginseer support units is very conservative, and unless it is a repair that is needed, he is unwilling to make changes.

Again, this is obsessively and unreasonably strict. Sponsons are built into the vehicle (for example, the original Baneblade-class rules and models had the sponsons permanently included, there was no option to omit them), and common on those tanks. But even with this obvious fluff explanation you're unwilling to compromise on even a minor detail of your fluff, everything has to be 100% perfect in every possible detail. Instead of a more reasonable compromise, that your tanks have sponsons but are always played WYSIWYG and you don't, for example, swap the HBs for HFs when fighting on a terrain-heavy table. But instead nothing at all about your choices may be changed, no matter how much it hurts you.

**Ordana**

ian wrote:
If everybody is playing with competive list then i dont have a choice if i want to play the game. Thats the cost of the meta either join them or lose

empathy is about give and take but did you really just say that somebody is selfish because they dont want to play a game when they know they will lose?

Thats not the social contract the rules are there for to try and provide entertainment

I dont think its entertaing to beat somebody when then dont have a chance to win.

I guess some people dont care about that

Have you ever asked them to bring a softer list?
If you did and told you to 'git gud' then you have a good point, otherwise ask people.

**Peregrine**

Wayniac wrote:
And, by the same token, "competitive" players should not be selfish and demand that everyone adjust their lists to match the specific models that the "competitive" player wants to use. After all, if you have fairness and empathy for others you should not expect the entire burden of making hobby compromises to fall on one player.

I don't. But, in my experience, competitive players are more likely to make a degree of compromises (playing a second-tier list instead of a top-tier list) to meet an opponent halfway, while "fluff" and "casual" players like Unit1126PLL refuse to make any changes at all and insist that even the second-tier list is not enough compromising.

**ian**

Yes i have but they deny its a strong list

I guess ive been thinking a bad game is better than none

**Wayniac**

ian wrote:
I guess ive been thinking a bad game is better than none

That's something I think a lot of people feel. They'd rather have an not enjoyable game than no game at all.

**Unit1126PLL**

Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
But I am stuck on those ideas because they are my fluff, and I care deeply about it. It's like me saying "What's the best way to play an archer Fighter in 5th Edition DND?" and other people saying "Yeah but barbarian does triple the DPR (damage per round) unless you go 2-handed and then the fighter can go Champion and crit a lot, matching the Barbarian while having a bit more feats, except for rage..." or "Just play a ranger, idiot!" and I'm like "but... I want to play an archer without magic..."

And my point is that your fluff is both questionable in its accuracy and obsessively specific about trivial details. You aren't just saying "what's the best way to play an archer fighter", you're saying "what's the best way to play an archer fighter with a +1 composite shortbow (+1 strength bonus) and full plate armor and the following specific feats and skill choices" rejecting any advice that isn't exactly the character sheet you posted. For example, rejecting the idea of using a +2 strength bonus on the bow to get more damage, because your fluff requires that it be a +1 bonus.

Yes, you're right, it is more like that. And you know what really pissed me off about 4th Edition D&D? That you couldn't play a plate-armoured archer if you wanted to, and I wanted to. It literally kept me from playing the game. Call me unreasonable, but you don't get to say what I am passionate about. I was flexible about which bow I used and my stats, however. Which to me is just like the support units I ask about: I have the "core" idea (3 Superheavy Tanks or a plate-armoured archer), and I would like to figure out how best to optimize everything around the core idea (so being told not to wear plate armour is a bit silly and irrelevant and harms the discussion more than it helps).

Peregrine wrote:
And you can't understand why the number of tanks or sponsons matters for fluff at all? I'm a bit shocked you don't understand that. My Tank Company back in the day, and my Superheavy Company now, have regimental doctrines (not the rule kind, but the fluff kind) that include making max size companies to send to the battlefield wherever and whenever possible, including consolidating tanks from the reserve and other companies to bring the vanguard company to regulation strength.

Ok. And a 40k game is not a full-scale battle. It's either a skirmish (where a full tank company wouldn't appear), or a "snapshot" of an area of a larger battlefield. A tank company would not be deployed without any support, full strength or not, so a fluff-accurate representation of a full-strength LRBT company in a 2000 point game might be five tanks (total of ~1000 points) and various supporting infantry/aircraft/etc, with the remaining five tanks in the company "off screen" in the part of the battle happening on the adjacent table. This is exactly my point about how obsessively and unreasonably strict your "fluff" requirements are: not only do you have to exactly follow the specific units that make up your company on paper, it has to fight in the exact way you have decided and all of it must appear "on screen" at once.

Why can't it be a full-scale battle? And why can't my tanks be in the same "frame" for the ~2 minutes or whatever of battle time that the game reflects? Surely each turn is no more than 6-12 seconds of combat, given the reload speeds and fire rates of weapons? And I do support my tanks - that's literally what I was asking about for the 400-500 point leftovers for the 2k list. I don't know where you got this idea that I don't like to take support - heck, at 2500 I'll field 900-1k points of support, and at 3000, damn near half the list is supporting units. And yes, it has to fight in the exact way I have decided... because why wouldn't it? It's my army, and I get to decide how it plays, surely?

If you want my fluff rationale, it's that the regiment prefers to fight in as tight formations as possible like bomber aircraft in World War II, to support each other with overlapping fields of fire. However-much support I get is not my Company Commander's decision; he or she is instead simply allocated support (represented by the points limit of the game) and told to make do. Surely you can understand this, yes? I know you think its unreasonable, but I play the game for the fluff, so it's not unreasonable at all.

Peregrine wrote:
And they don't have the resources to add sponsons on the fly to vehicles - the Magos who tends the enginseer support units is very conservative, and unless it is a repair that is needed, he is unwilling to make changes.

Again, this is obsessively and unreasonably strict. Sponsons are built into the vehicle (for example, the original Baneblade-class rules and models had the sponsons permanently included, there was no option to omit them), and common on those tanks. But even with this obvious fluff explanation you're unwilling to compromise on even a minor detail of your fluff, everything has to be 100% perfect in every possible detail. Instead of a more reasonable compromise, that your tanks have sponsons but are always played WYSIWYG and you don't, for example, swap the HBs for HFs when fighting on a terrain-heavy table. But instead nothing at all about your choices may be changed, no matter how much it hurts you.

All my Baneblade companies have a Forge World Baneblade as the HQ tank (representing the ancient, relic Mars-pattern, since that's what they are), and the other Baneblades do in fact have sponsons in their companies. My Hellhammers, however, do not, as they were manufactured on their Forge World with thicker side armour (used to be you could trade the Sponsons for AV14 for free, though that is no longer the case) due to the particular whims of the overseeing Archmagos. My Shadowswords, on the other hand, have no set number of sponsons (as I have not yet built them or decided how to build them) so I do have to figure that out - might go with max sponsons. The "classic" Shadowsword is no help, because it had targeters instead of lascannons, and that's not really possible in 8th. I do actually play WYSIWYG whenever possible, and will field mixed companies (so, for example, I might bring a Hellhammer with no sponsons, a "classic" Baneblade with one set, and a Stormhammer with its own unique sponson configuration, to a game).

And I don't think it's obsessively or unreasonably strict. My last D&D campaign I played a character who had literally lost everything before the game started, and I voluntarily gave up all his starting gear so he could be a beggar in rags when the group found him, having been a disgraced and exiled knight. They loved the RP potential, though the party's DPS did take a hit, I admit.

EDIT: Your constant assertion that I am unwilling to compromise is flatly incorrect and I wish you'd get the message, though perhaps you're not reading:
Once the core of my list is settled on, I make changes with the remaining points. Those points are completely up in the air, and can change from game to game if necessary as the Regiment rotates through warzones and battlegroups. However many points those are is entirely dependent on the game we've agreed to play, but can easily be 3/4ths of the list in an Apocalypse game, or there can be zero wiggle room in lesser games.

**Chamberlain**

nou wrote:
I must admit, you seem to have won a lottery and live in a worldwide centre of "out of the rut" players. To date I considered myself lucky by having a four (now sadly just three) person group and there are people like Wayniac here, that struggle to find anyone open enough to even try our route. The "host prepares the table and scenario" approach is very much what we do, including giving a brief description of such location and overall goal prior to list construction representing "vaguely reliable intel data".

The truth is that a friend of mine built it. He spent a couple years making sure everyone had contact with one another, organized events and made sure everyone was on the same page. If anyone expressed any interest in anything geeky, he got their contact info. His theory was that if GW really didn't believe that enough of their customers were into a more casual experience, they wouldn't concentrate on it so much. So the people must be out there and we just need to find them. They were. We did.

Here's the thing-- we don't just give our contact info out to anyone. And we're not game beggers who tragically search for opponents who look for the same thing as we do. We don't rail against our plight (we don't have a plight) And we never, ever (this is so important) speak negatively about the game choices of other people in person. We aren't looking for the elite few who "get it." We're looking for the normal boring majority who don't take things seriously enough to show up to tournaments or store gaming nights.

The other thing we don't do is poach from established warhammer groups who are already enjoying their thing. If we stumble across someone who also happens to be part of some other group, that's cool I guess. We will go to events organized for semi-related interests. We will run Age of Sigmar Skirmish at the local board game club.

We make new hobbyists. Or have people who used to play get back into it. How we go about doing this is sort of complex and related to the reality of having small children, but our primary source of new players are the parents of toddlers who might be friends of friends and we show up with the self contained board game equivalent of the hobby. The extroverts often have the hardest time adjusting to their less social existence when children come along and someone always has to be there while they are sleeping.

It's the same group of people among whom Dungeons and Dragons is having a serious renaissance right now. And they're probably among the main contributors to the explosion of the board game industry.

Regular attendees of store events and organized play? They already have what they are looking for. If I wanted to find the local Wayniac who is disappointed and frustrated with the nature of his scene, he's not going to be there.

**Ordana**

ian wrote:
Yes i have but they deny its a strong list

I guess ive been thinking a bad game is better than none

I'm sorry to hear that. Its say to see people who are unwilling to lower their standards in order to have an enjoyable game for both.

**Peregrine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, you're right, it is more like that. And you know what really pissed me off about 4th Edition D&D? That you couldn't play a plate-armoured archer if you wanted to, and I wanted to. It literally kept me from playing the game. Call me unreasonable, but you don't get to say what I am passionate about. I was flexible about which bow I used and my stats, however. Which to me is just like the support units I ask about: I have the "core" idea (3 Superheavy Tanks or a plate-armoured archer), and I would like to figure out how best to optimize everything around the core idea (so being told not to wear plate armour is a bit silly and irrelevant and harms the discussion more than it helps).

Maybe you were more flexible in D&D, but not in 40k. In 40k you're doing the equivalent of demanding that your bow must have exactly a +1 strength bonus, and that tiny detail is absolute law that can not be changed.

Why can't it be a full-scale battle?

Because a 2000 point game does not represent a full battle, nor does a 6x4 table represent the size of battlefield where a full tank company would be found.

And why can't my tanks be in the same "frame" for the ~2 minutes or whatever of battle time that the game reflects?

Because your tanks aren't all grouping together in tight formation, a full ten-tank company would be spread out across much more than a 6x4 area. Unless this is some weird (and rarely-played) scenario like "your tanks are on the parade ground showing off for the officers when the ambush strikes" you'd only have a few tanks in the area represented by a 6x4 table, and you'd have a significant amount of supporting elements visible in that area.

As a rough guideline for what would be fluffy take your full company, add in supporting elements as appropriate (at least equal points worth, probably more), and then divide that into 2000 point groups. That comes out to way more than the 25% of your list in support that you're talking about even if all your tanks are naked LRBTs and not the more expensive kind.

And yes, it has to fight in the exact way I have decided... because why wouldn't it? It's my army, and I get to decide how it plays, surely?

And that's exactly the no-compromise position I'm talking about. Your list must be exactly what you have decided, leaving the entire obligation to make list adjustments for balancing reasons on your opponent. Why should you have the exclusive privilege of setting a specific fluff list, down to obsessive tiny details about the exact weapons carried by each model, and force me to make whatever changes are necessary so that we can have an enjoyable game? Why shouldn't I be able to have the same rigidity with my list choices, and force you to make changes to meet my power level? This is a very one-sided situation you've come up with.

However-much support I get is not my Company Commander's decision; he or she is instead simply allocated support (represented by the points limit of the game) and told to make do.

No, obviously it isn't your company commander's decision, because your company commander is a plastic (resin? metal?) toy that is not capable of making decisions. You as a player, however, get to make decisions. You have chosen to make the decision that all ten tanks must appear on the table, and supporting units can only come out of the remaining points. You have chosen to reject the idea that half your company is fighting "off camera" next to the game and bring additional supporting units. And even when this choice leads to a poor experience for your opponent you insist that this decision can not be changed.

And I don't think it's obsessively or unreasonably strict. My last D&D campaign I played a character who had literally lost everything before the game started, and I voluntarily gave up all his starting gear so he could be a beggar in rags when the group found him, having been a disgraced and exiled knight. They loved the RP potential, though the party's DPS did take a hit, I admit.

And that's fortunate for you that they did, and didn't mind having to take on a higher burden of playing optimized characters to make up for your lack of contribution and avoid losing every encounter. But you could have made the alternative choice to have the exact same story background, except joining the party slightly later, after he has found appropriate gear. But again you have to represent your fluff exactly the way you have decided, even when everyone else has to change to accommodate it.

EDIT: Your constant assertion that I am unwilling to compromise is flatly incorrect

And your assertion that I am wrong is flatly incorrect. You have, over and over again, rejected the idea of making changes to any of the countless minor details that you have declared to be the "core" of your list, expanding the definition of "core" far beyond what any other person would consider reasonable. You have a long history of making posts on the theme of "my opponents are not having fun because I play a one-dimensional list, what can I do" and then rejecting any answer that doesn't involve continuing to play the same one-dimensional list.

**Unit1126PLL**

I can't roll my eyes any harder without them hurting.

The way I view it is my regiment is my character in D&D. That means I can make changes to his gear (as that stuff can be discarded and replaced whenever) and to me that's like the support units. The core of the character (e.g. race and class) cannot be retroactively changed, because that just doesn't make sense in the fluff. I can't go back in time and recruit a Magos who is willing to make changes on the fly, nor can I alter the construction choices some Archmagos on Gavros-IV made when he produced the Hellhammers without sponsons. Those are like feats and stats, they just are and I have to make do.

I play more than 2000 points games and on tables of varying sizes and not just 6x4. The tables, in the fluff, are my "area of operations" and they are defined oftentimes in protest from my Regimental Commander. I cannot control game-table-size OOCly (usually that's limited by the store) and only have some control of the points level (as that of course requires opponent's input). So in the narrative, my regimental commander may want a bigger AO for her companies, since they're so big, and might call for more support, since they do need support to function well...

...but if the game is a 6x4 at 2000 points, then she failed to make her points. She didn't win her arguments, and so her AO is tiny for each company, and her support is almost nil. Chalk it up to an inefficient and unreasonable Imperial bureaucracy in-character, and the limitations of store and time out of character. I'm comfortable with that.

**LunarSol**

Eldarsif wrote:
Ultimately the problem is that competitive is a much more solid goalpost than casual. Not really attempting to disparage casual, but casual is such a subjective goalpost that one person's casual is another person's competitive.

Generally speaking, I play games that are built towards competitive play because I find them easier to play casually. One of my favorite things about Warmachine is that the competitive standard is so prevalent that I'm often able to take my army with me when I travel; find a local game night, and get in a game with a total stranger without issue. It's "competitive" by any reasonable description, but its also the most laid back, social gaming experience you can get because the players are naturally speaking the same language.

**Peregrine**

Unit1126PLL, I am honestly starting to question if you are having trouble separating fiction and reality. Your plastic toys did not make decisions, YOU made decisions. You as a player take responsibility for those choices, and you as a player can modify the choices you have made if they don't work out well (just like how, in D&D, you would replace a feat choice if it turned out to break the game). You as a player have made the choice that your entire company must be "on camera" together, and your poor commander can only have her battlefield changed, not be told that she is to split her force across two smaller battlefields and not get to keep all ten tanks in tight parade-ground formation. You as a player have made the choice to discard every possible fluff modification that would make the game more enjoyable for your opponent, and insist that every single fluff decision you have made is absolute and unchangeable law. Don't blame your plastic toys for these choices.

**auticus**

I think the common denominator here is simply that a lot of people posting here that prefer competitive are also strong pick up gamers that need a strong standard to comply with to play a series of unknown opponents.

**Unit1126PLL**

Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL, I am honestly starting to question if you are having trouble separating fiction and reality. Your plastic toys did not make decisions, YOU made decisions. You as a player take responsibility for those choices, and you as a player can modify the choices you have made if they don't work out well (just like how, in D&D, you would replace a feat choice if it turned out to break the game). You as a player have made the choice that your entire company must be "on camera" together, and your poor commander can only have her battlefield changed, not be told that she is to split her force across two smaller battlefields and not get to keep all ten tanks in tight parade-ground formation. You as a player have made the choice to discard every possible fluff modification that would make the game more enjoyable for your opponent, and insist that every single fluff decision you have made is absolute and unchangeable law. Don't blame your plastic toys for these choices.

I'm not blaming them, I'm showing you my fluff justifications. If you want OOC justifications, then I'll say "I enjoy it, and if my opponent's don't, then I'll change, but I won't enjoy it, and will eventually vent somewhere."

If you ask why I enjoy it that way, all I can do is shrug. Call me insufficiently introspective, but I don't really analyze why I enjoy things; I just accept the emotions and roll on. So essentially my OOC justification for doing it the way I do it is "I enjoy it." Doing so differently means "I don't enjoy it." I'm sorry that those are subjective valuations and don't hold up to logical analysis, but surely you can recognize there's still value in doing what you enjoy when performing your own hobby?

**Chamberlain**

Peregrine wrote:
You as a player have made the choice that your entire company must be "on camera" together

This is a very good point.

As someone who loves it when the rules are evocative and sees the gaming table like an RPG where everyone is a GM, thinking about it like a film maker really speaks to me. You've got to have scenes where the whole company is there, but the ones that zoom in on particular individuals or small groups are super important if you want to have a good mental movie of your fiction.