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.

Wayniac wrote:
There is no citation needed. The vast majority of games played are matched play games with points.

Prove it.

the_scotsman wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
40K works much better than other games in absence of a social agreement.

MTG is simply unplayable. I'm gonna say "Standard" you are gonna say "Ok, standard!", then i put a premade standard deck on the table and you put a competitive one. Guess who's not going to enjoy the game?

Warmahordes is even worse. The difference between bad lists and good lists is so huge that it is like playing fluffy chaos marines against Eldar scatspam in 7th. You have no chances of winning.

The same is true for popular pc games. Wanna try going against a Goat with a fun and random composition in overwatch?

Apart from some truly nightmare games like imperial soup against mono GK, any other game is at least enjoyable. Yes my fluffy mono SM will not win many games against an optimized IG, but out of 10 games i will win 2 or 3.

This is an excellent post and anyone with experience in competitive gaming beyond tabletops, I'd imagine most people but I don't know, should be able to recognise the truth in this statement.

In terms of video games I think people tend to not see it because it's so much faster and easier to switch over to the meta picks/strategies yourself, so you never really experience a "casual vs competitive" scenario. Also there generally tends to be an automatic system in place matching you against players with a similar attitude towards the game as your own - if you play competitively in a video game, matchmaker systems will pit you against similarly competitive players.

The "40k vs other tabletop games" divide though, that is something that has always boggled my mind. The fact people complain about book bloat in 40k when you have something like DnD/Pathfinder/Flames of War out there where you simply will not own every publication that exists for the game, it is impossible to do so, and they complain about miniature pricing and monoposed-ness in 40k when you have something out there like Malifaux where A) all the models are completely monopse and B ) you are very often paying more per piece of mass-produced plastic than you would be from GW...it's kind of nuts to me. The grass is always greener, I guess.

I agree with what you are saying, but I mean you still see it very much in video games too even with what you say being factored in, so it's no surprise you see it here too.

 Melissia wrote:

auticus wrote:
Yeah but most of us know that 99% of the population are matched-play only.

Citation needed.

Any poll ever taken on the subject. Some of which can be pulled up in dakka's history.

Wayniac wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

auticus wrote:
Yeah but most of us know that 99% of the population are matched-play only.

Citation needed.

There is no citation needed. The vast majority of games played are matched play games with points. I'd wager there is a much smaller amount of Narrative (way more than open, but much less than matched) and an extremely tiny minority of Open play games out there. Yet GW tries to cater to three styles when one (arguably the one they pay the least attention to) is vastly more popular and desired.

You're potentially making a huge error here. The problem is that the pool of data we have skews towards people who take the game more seriously. We have a healthy tournament scene, we have passionate forum posters. We are in all likelihood the minority though!

There are countless people out there who play super casually who do not engage with online communities or organised play events, or show up to the FLGS for their minis nighy. They buy Dark Imperium and maybe a few other kits and have fun. A lot of these players are kids too.

Sure, we don't know what the real split between us and them is. But you are entirely ignoring this community in your analysis simply because they don't have a voice right here.

 Melissia wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
There is no citation needed. The vast majority of games played are matched play games with points.

Prove it.

Can you prove that the vast majority of games are not played with cardboard cutouts?

Put your ear to the community and the answer to this kind of thing pretty clear.

Even narrative games often played by points values simply because PL is so gak

auticus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

auticus wrote:
Yeah but most of us know that 99% of the population are matched-play only.

Citation needed.

Any poll ever taken on the subject. Some of which can be pulled up in dakka's history.

Dakka polls? That is meaningless in this context. People posting here will obviously skew towards taking the game more seriously. People who play more casually will be less likely to engage with online communities.

Then what you are setting up is an impossible situation that cannot be gauged but then demanding proof of the impossible situation to try and prove a point that it cannot be proven, which I strongly disagree with.

All we can do are polls, and those polls on not just dakka but every social media site on this game lean grossly towards points-only or predominantly points. Every person I meet in life, or online, for the past 20 years that I've been in this game, has leaned grossly toward points-only or predominantly points.

And I know in my community only about 1/4 of the people are super serious about the game, but all use points and would answer mostly points even if they don't take the game super seriously (but still monitor forums and facebook groups and vote)

 Melissia wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
There is no citation needed. The vast majority of games played are matched play games with points.

Prove it.

I cringe at the broad sweeping statements as much as the next person but I too have found very few people play with the power level system.
All 3 local hobby shops I have in my area all play for points and most discussions I have here all involve the points system.
It would be an interesting poll to try which would go toward "proving it".
There is another thread that goes on for some 6 pages on this topic here.
I would be terribly interested in any "citation" that would be worth quoting, we mainly have our own anecdotal evidence to go by.

I have played as high as 5000 point games a side and still did not feel a want or need to use power levels (which for Apocalypse level games is the only need I can see for power levels).
Heck, having played games this big and not lose my mind can attest to 40k "being in a pretty good place" for me.

I do like options but having these different tiers of play "seems" like it would be more divisive than bringing us together.

auticus wrote:
Any poll ever taken on the subject. Some of which can be pulled up in dakka's history.

Actually, dakka's polls do NOT support the assertion in question. They show people on Dakka playing something like 10% Open games, 30% Narrative games, 60% Matched games, depending on the poll (For example, here) -- and that's for Dakka, which has a tendency towards competitiveness to begin with. So this "99% of people don't play anything but matched" is pulled straight out of your ass. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just trying to claim your experiences are representative of the whole. And that's just the "matched play" assertion, it does not include the "points" assertion.

So this "99% of people don't play anything but matched" is pulled straight out of your ass. You have no idea what you're talking about

Sweet you're one of those people that aren't really interested in discussing, but being king-daddy keyboard warrior.

Might wanna check those terms of service that you agreed to on the site.

auticus wrote:
Sweet you're one of those people that aren't really interested in discussing

Thus speaks the poster who makes dismissive, arrogant sweeping assertions as his sole form of argument. Hello pot, I'm kettle, and I'd like to say that you're also black.

Yep if you say so.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Put your ear to the community and the answer to this kind of thing pretty clear.

And the answer is "people use both power level and points, and people also play narrative as well as matched play".

Unless you define "the community" as "only those people whom exclusively play at tournaments", you're not gonna find that 99% of people refuse to play anything other matched play with points. At this point, that argument is little more than the 40k equivalent of the "fox only, no items, final destination" meme.

All I can offer is anecdotal proof, but my local GW does everything by points too. Escalation league he's hosting goes up by 500 points a month, using Matched Play rules. Every game I've played there has been matched play. He's hosting an Apoc game next month using Narrative Play rules with PL, but that's Apoc, and to be expected.

Every time I've played someone from a different store, it's been matched play rules. Everyone who used to play earlier version uses points with matched play rules, since that's the way we're used to. he new PL system looks like a poor substitute for that to me, honestly, and I'm sure I'm not the only player who remembers previous versions to think that way.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?

Simple answer- they're a business and they want to make money, but we all know that.

GW is fully aware of the existence of "that guy". And we all know "that guy" many times is more focused on winning than anything else, to the point where he has no concerns about how anyone else is enjoying the game or how they feel him. He doesn't care if the person he played refuses to play him again and hates him, he won and that's all that matters. "That Guy" will lie and say he wants a 'friendly fluff game' just because his opponent will let down his guard. "He's the type that would grave-rob his own grandmother's casket if he needed to, in order to buy a toy that helps him win.

I have watched, with my own two eyes, "That Guy" overdraft his bank account the week before a tournament to get some recently FAQ'd hot combo. Not only did he overdraft, and straight-up say "I'm over-drafting my account for this"- but he asks if he can leave his car at our shop for a week, tops- and then calls someone to come and pick him up because he's out of gas.

There's worse stories, that's just one that stuck in my head. I'm sure you've seen much, much worse.

...that all being said, you and I both know GW is fully aware that there are people like that and they're more than willing to give them an excuse to throw money in the till. As far as they're concerned, if a 500-point list needs to prohibit LoW units like Knights? Then that's on the local TO or between the players- they're very unlikely to step in and make any kinds of changes that could cost them money, so they're putting that on us.

I mean, let's not act like new models with a new codex isn't almost always a power creep. Have you ever wondered why GW doesn't just spend a longer amount of time playtesting and refining all the Codexes for one big release of all of them balanced against one another? They start scheming on new stuff at least 5 years out, according to Jess Goodwin's interview. I'd bet a Primaris Lieutenant that 9th edition is already written, and I'd bet every single Codex has a draft. But they do these releases over a period of time because every new Codex has got that 'hot goodness' that tons of people want and will pay for.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.

For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500pts < games <= 1000pts
etc.

I mean everyone's personal experiences are colored exactly by what is around them.

When I start seeing narrative play discussions and no point discussions not thrown off into some shady part of a group or forum with a handful of posts in a year I'll start to reconsider the stance based on different inputs.

I'm sure those people exist in their garages etc. But they are by far not even close to being any more than a tiny blip on the radar.

So pedantically speaking 99% is misspeaking but the percent of people who will only use or primarily only use points is pretty close to the 90 or higher mark; I'd bet the farm on that.

And that makes a huge deal to design paradigms and sales and marketing approaches, which going back to what we were actually talking about is why knights are stomping around in 500 point games with no restrictions and why restrictions were removed circa 6th or so edition of 40k (and AOS is the same way).

I'm also the farthest from a tournament player that exists. So no I'm not speaking from a closeted view of I only hang out with powergamers that powergame all day in a tournament hall.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Well, provided it's from the same country. If we're comparing, the UK's looks kinda weird.

I'm pretty sure since GW is from the UK they think everyone else's currency looks kinda weird.

 Melissia wrote:
And the answer is "people use both power level and points, and people also play narrative as well as matched play".

Anecdotal, but in three different countries, and all across the United States- the only time I haven't used points is when my friend and I are just playing around with the system to do some kind of silly game type that isn't even "40k". Literally every single game I've played and seen has used points, albeit some are more flexible about being 'ball-park' within 5 points or so.

Well, points are not really the only thing that defines matched play. Due to Battlescribe I'd assume most games are played with points, even when they're narrative games. At least that's the majority of my games and even GW hints at that in some WarCom articles.

auticus wrote:
So pedantically speaking 99% is misspeaking but the percent of people who will only use or primarily only use points is pretty close to the 90 or higher mark; I'd bet the farm on that.

You're going to lose your farm. Even your own poll disagrees with that.

Right now its 14 out of 18 people predominantly or only use points.

Thats a pretty stark comparison. Certainly would be enough to reinforce not wanting restrictions if I want to maximize my sales by not limiting super heavies to certain games when the predominantly vast majority are going to be using points and not just plop things down apoc style.

Only 11/18 exclusively use points and matched play, which is roughly at the 60% mark I mentioned above. This matches previous Dakka polls.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, points are not really the only thing that defines matched play. Due to Battlescribe I'd assume most games are played with points, even when they're narrative games. At least that's the majority of my games and even GW hints at that in some WarCom articles.

And I honestly think the next edition will use a Power Level system instead of a points system. Not because it's 'better', but for a reason.

Because in order to do a full-blown, fully-optimized squad... you'll have to get more than one kit. And since the name of the game will be about 'always having the unit optimized for the threat' and you'll not be bound by points, they'll all cost the same PL.... you can bet that people are gonna buy 6 Devastator kits to ensure they always have 4 of each weapon as an option. And that's not factoring in people that will buy a multiples of a kit that happens to be one of the few with a very specific weapon.

They'd be fools not to, to be honest.

Slipspace wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?

GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.

For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500 < games <= 1000pts
etc.

That would be sensible but it goes against GW's philosophy of allowing essentially completely unrestricted list building. That's the main reason the game is as unbalanced as it is, IMO. With no real restrictions on what you can take in an army you lose one of the best tools a designer has for balancing the game. The other consequence of this is that armies stop looking like armies. Between free rein to soup whatever you want and all the different detachment options, armies now look like a random assortment of stuff rather than coherent forces.

The game is imbalanced because of broken units. Wrath Castellan is broken at any point level and I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

I find that highly unlikely. GW doesn't even update powerlevels in the current Edition so I have the feeling they realize that the system is rarely used, unlike points, which are also for many narrative games the default Option because why not.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I find that highly unlikely. GW doesn't even update powerlevels in the current Edition so I have the feeling they realize that the system is rarely used, unlike points, which are also for many narrative games the default Option because why not.

Agreed. If they were trying to groom people to accept the new system, they'd keep it constantly updated, and they'd push it at their own tournament events. They just held a tournament event though using points. So I think they introduced the PL system saw it wasn't super popular, and backed off on the idea.

auticus wrote:
Right now its 14 out of 18 people predominantly or only use points.

Thats a pretty stark comparison. Certainly would be enough to reinforce not wanting restrictions if I want to maximize my sales by not limiting super heavies to certain games when the predominantly vast majority are going to be using points and not just plop things down apoc style.

Cute how your argument has gone from "99% of people use points" when talking in here to "Do you use points OR POWER LEVEL" when trying to pull the ol' classic "I will put up a poll and report back 10 minutes later when 20 people have responded and one of them is me to report I am right and everyone else is a stoopidhead" maneuver.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I find that highly unlikely. GW doesn't even update powerlevels in the current Edition so I have the feeling they realize that the system is rarely used, unlike points, which are also for many narrative games the default Option because why not.

Well my theory is that people rarely use PL because they don't think it's an accurate means of balance. Granted, points aren't 'balanced', in a lot of ways.

But I think they'll only have PL next edition, and for your list you'll have "Scion Squad"- and that's it, for 5 PL, no other details unless you raise the PL by adding more Scions to the squad. And then when you and your opponent are alternating deploying your units and you see he's laid down a horde of Hormagaunts, you grab Scions with flamers. Or when he puts down Termagants, you grab the Scions with Volley guns- each time deciding specifically which loudout that squad should have based on your opponent's deployment. You'd essentially be list-tailoring as you deploy...

...which would have you buying lots more kits to optimize your units for anything.

I'd be shocked if this didn't happen- because the system is already in place to transition over to that with minimal adjustments for GW, you're gonna be the one that has to scramble and get all the possible variations of weapons a unit can carry.

Wayniac wrote:
I think a better analogy to Warhammer 40k if we're going to use Sirlin's discussion on SF2 is "Old Sagat" rather than Akuma. I'll post the quote below for source but basically, Old Sagat isn't "broken" like Akuma is, but there's also a gentleman's agreement to not use him because he invalidates a few other characters; the field of available characters has more diversity if you remove him. This is a better comparison to 40k because something like the Knight Castellan isn't "broken" in the sense it breaks the game, but it existing certainly means a lot of other things are nonviable to play (most any vehicle for example).

Actual Quote:

David Sirlin, Playing to Win, What Should be Banned? wrote:
The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.

But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.

That seems way more appropriate to compare to 40k as there are a lot of units that by virtue of being allowed to use make several other things unviable to use

Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.

Banning whatever you want doesn't make certain stuff better. I haven't played Street Fighter in an long time, but Mortal Kombat and SSB are my jam.
The best comparison to make was with SSB Brawl and tons of tournaments banning Metaknight. Banning Metaknight didn't make characters like Kirby more viable though. All it did was stop certain things from happening until something more balanced happened.

With the next two games, we now get balance patches. Certain characters are still unviable though (here's looking at you, Mr. Game&Watch!) and banning the top 10 characters won't make him any better.

GW isn't doing any balancing patches that are gonna help Grey Knights. I will also argue that if you think a character is broken, too bad. Learn to play against them until the next balancing patch. The analogy is bad because old games couldn't be patched and, once done, that's all you get.

 Horst wrote:
All I can offer is anecdotal proof, but my local GW does everything by points too. Escalation league he's hosting goes up by 500 points a month, using Matched Play rules. Every game I've played there has been matched play. He's hosting an Apoc game next month using Narrative Play rules with PL, but that's Apoc, and to be expected.

Every time I've played someone from a different store, it's been matched play rules. Everyone who used to play earlier version uses points with matched play rules, since that's the way we're used to. he new PL system looks like a poor substitute for that to me, honestly, and I'm sure I'm not the only player who remembers previous versions to think that way.

So my local GW just did a narrative campaign at 50PL. As did another near me. There are plenty of games there using points and also a good number of matched play games, but GW still see value in both narrative gaming and PL. My independent FLGS even ran a tournament using PL last year to try it out.

I would guess that >80% of games taking place in stores/clubs near me are set up using points and >50% are matched play missions rather than narrative/open. I am less sure about what happens on kitchen tables or garages around the country, my limited contact with that side of the game was more at the narrative end of the scale..

That statement of 99% matched play with points? Random made-up statistics are such fun.