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.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Of course there is. Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules,

That's awfully restrictive, and the reason why I find X-Wing dull. Since a major part of 40k is the narrative approach (remember, even with the "three ways to play", straight-up competitive play is only one of those ) saying you can only play these three missions at one single points limit rather defeats the point.

And really, if "fancy a game of 40k?" "sure, 1500 points? I've got Orks" "OK, cool. I'll bring Marines. Fancy trying this mission here?" "Yeah, cool" is a chore, then I worry about the future of society.

It may not be your cup of tea, but the comment I was responding to was implying it was impossible to create a situation where no pre-game negotiation was required. Given the existence of games where that negotiation doesn't happen, that's clearly false and seems to be yet another excuse trotted out to explain GW's lack of ability to balance their own game. X-Wing is just one example, and other games exist with multiple missions available that still don't require any pre-game discussion.

I know the infinity guys don't talk much pre game, other then what scenario they play. they very mechanical in their game play too. No talk other then what is happening in the game. They do talk a lot post game though. And MtG people don't talk to each other at all unless they are trading or playing.

Karol wrote:
I know the infinity guys don't talk much pre game, other then what scenario they play. they very mechanical in their game play too. No talk other then what is happening in the game. They do talk a lot post game though. And MtG people don't talk to each other at all unless they are trading or playing.

Infinity is one of those games that is much more balanced than 40k. In terms of gameplay, it has so much depth and complexity that in comparison, Kill-Team may as well be two kids with green army men in the dirt making machine gun noises at each other. It's not easy to learn, and you really have to pay attention to what you're doing because if you're not careful your entire strategy with your little squad can be completely derailed because you didn't notice the guy with a rocket launcher has an open lane of fire or your "quarterback" has his back turned and you used your last activation order. That game can end in the first round, the first player's turn. And I've seen it turn 'skilled' 40k players into sulking peebabies.

Don't get it wrong, I'm not saying I'm good at it, but I will say that my experience playing Infinity with some understanding of my units' capabilities led to a much better win/lose ratio and a lot less feeling as if I'd just up and started playing the wrong faction, because overall- the sectorials are all very well-balanced against one another, and even running outright vanilla factions isn't entirely a bad idea much of the time.

One of the reasons the Infinity and M:tG players aren't talking is because despite one being a miniatures skirmish game and the other being a card game- they're both about having tricks up your sleeve and hiding things from your opponent until the perfect opportunity presents itself. Infinity has units that you don't even put on the board or tell your opponent about, just like you wouldn't tell your opponent what cards you have in your hand when playing M:tG.

Slipspace wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Of course there is. Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules,

That's awfully restrictive, and the reason why I find X-Wing dull. Since a major part of 40k is the narrative approach (remember, even with the "three ways to play", straight-up competitive play is only one of those ) saying you can only play these three missions at one single points limit rather defeats the point.

And really, if "fancy a game of 40k?" "sure, 1500 points? I've got Orks" "OK, cool. I'll bring Marines. Fancy trying this mission here?" "Yeah, cool" is a chore, then I worry about the future of society.

It may not be your cup of tea, but the comment I was responding to was implying it was impossible to create a situation where no pre-game negotiation was required. Given the existence of games where that negotiation doesn't happen, that's clearly false and seems to be yet another excuse trotted out to explain GW's lack of ability to balance their own game. X-Wing is just one example, and other games exist with multiple missions available that still don't require any pre-game discussion.

The issue isn't whether or not it could, the issue is that a certain bird makes a huge deal out of how this means the designers are all incompetent buffoons who should be fired because Warhammer does encourage (I don't think it "requires" it, but it helps to avoid unfun situations) this while other games don't. To which I say so what? If it's such a big deal to you, go play one of those games where you can just turn up to the store and ask any random person for a game without having to figure out what will be fun for you both. There is nothing inherently wrong with Warhammer wanting to be more social, even if it could not be.

Well I think the problem is that in a lot of places you can either play some sort of warhammer or not play at all. But I could be wrong. We have 4 infinity players, and one of them brings all the terrain for the game, they never play with the GW ones. And they look realy nice, he even has small scifi cars and mini stores and chinese joint that looks like an actual take out box with a naked lady behind the counter.

But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.

Like lets say someone plays only ITC games, with ITC scenarios, such a person could be upset that his army is good when played outside of ITC, or has units that work really well again outside of ITC. But him being upset about it doesn't lend itself as an argument for W40k is bad everywhere around the world. I mean I kind of a get now why some people say that GK are a good army. Good army is not good good, but good to play against. It doesn't even matter what kind of an army is being played as long as the opponent is someone you like to spend time with.

Kind of a does suck for people who dislike spending time with other people in general LoL.

Karol wrote:
Well I think the problem is that in a lot of places you can either play some sort of warhammer or not play at all. But I could be wrong. We have 4 infinity players, and one of them brings all the terrain for the game, they never play with the GW ones. And they look realy nice, he even has small scifi cars and mini stores and chinese joint that looks like an actual take out box with a naked lady behind the counter.

But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.

Like lets say someone plays only ITC games, with ITC scenarios, such a person could be upset that his army is good when played outside of ITC, or has units that work really well again outside of ITC. But him being upset about it doesn't lend itself as an argument for W40k is bad everywhere around the world. I mean I kind of a get now why some people say that GK are a good army. Good army is not good good, but good to play against. It doesn't even matter what kind of an army is being played as long as the opponent is someone you like to spend time with.

Kind of a does suck for people who dislike spending time with other people in general LoL.

I do notice there is a vehemence against having to talk to your opponent. Usually, but always, I see this coming from people who like to build competitive style lists and the reason they hate it is because they might get asked to tone down their list or not bring the Castellan because their opponent wouldn't find that a fun game, and then they get all butthurt about it or go on a rant about how the other person needs to git gud and not stop them from fielding their Castallan because it's in the rules.

For me personally my issue is that I am invested in the 40k lore, have spent a lot of money on models, and 40k is one of the only games you can play in town, but the rules balance is so bad that you are forced to play a certain build to have an enjoyable game.

The social contract in my city is to bring whats legal in the rules and git gud.

Having been a deeply invested tourney player that used to place high in the old GW GTs, I understand git gud. What I want is a game that reflects their narrative that doesn't require you to rotate your armies around to have a good game.

If you live in an area where you have players that understand the social construct and go "ok your force has units of chaos space marines because you liked those models, and you want to have an enjoyable game, so I won't bring my Adepticon tourney list" then you may think the game is in a good place.

If you are a GW game designer and live in the Ivory Tower and all of your games are with other GW games designers and white dwarf writers and hobbyists, you'll think the game is in a great place.

If you live in an area whose predominant mindset is git gud, you had better like rotating builds out, or be ok with losing before the game starts. I don't invest time and money into a game that is predetermined before the first turn by lists. Thats kind of an offshoot of professional wrestling IMO.

But that is taken as "pure balance is impossible, get wreckt". There are balance gaffes that points can't tackle, and those are bound to happen. Then there are things where you open the book and 19 seconds into reading unit profiles you bust out laughing because the SPIKE build is so obvious it rolls off the book and onto the table by itself.

We get it... GW wants to cater to the magic the gathering personas, and that means they have to give SPIKE his powergaming so they bake the powergaming into the game by giving OP builds to keep SPIKE spending money. But there has to be a better way.

Karol wrote:
But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.

If you ever get a chance to go look at some old Rogue Trader era stuff, you'll see that Warhammer 40k was not designed to be a 'tournament competition' wargame. It was created to be a fairly basic system for moving a few dudes around and making them fight. It was a very flexible system that was really just a tool for people to use, pretty much an excuse to play a game with the cool little spaceman dudes. It was by no means a very innovative or tactically challenging system, in truth it was something that you could have little skirmish battles or you could even play it more like a very simple RPG.

The thing is, over time GW found out that people were having tournaments- which at the time were probably just for fun and the spirit of friendly competition. And then, predictably- just as it is with literally any other kind of competition, it begins to draw in individuals that will obsess over winning to the point where no price is too high... so if these guys are trying to use the system for something it's not really good for, but they're hurling money at it and they're willing to sell their own childrens' organs on the black market to buy it...

Well, let's just say if I'm selling bricks for a dollar each and you come by and tell me that those bricks are delicious and you'll take a dozen more... I'm not going to stop and say you shouldn't eat my bricks, that they're not food. Nope, I will hand you a dozen bricks and say "Enjoy your meal, sir. Do you need any napkins?"

I mean, at the end of the day- the competitive people with fragile egos could be presented with empirical evidence that Warhammer 40k is not designed to be balanced for fair competition... and they won't bat an eye, because that means there's always a way to have the imbalance working in their favor. I could sit here and speculate like some pseudo-psychiatrist that these individuals are absolute failures at every other aspect of their lives so they desperately strive to win at the little game of toy soldiers because if they lose that means they are 100% a loser, but I think that is probably inaccurate (but not by much in a lot of cases).

I mean, if you really want to see what kind of people your local 40k meta is? Host an event, and just watch. Host a doubles tournament for new players to partner with veteran players, and you will see veteran players drag in their disinterested girlfriend to stand there while he plays two of his armies in a tournament soup list. Host an Escalation League and watch some guy have 3 of his friends join it so he can rig all his games. Host a painting competition and wait until someone lets you know that your first place winner paid a painting service to do his model.

The best explanation of Warhammer 40k's Competitive Scene is this: You will find no shortage of people who will spend $500.00 to build a netlist for a tournament and win $50.00 store credit.

Did you ever see that advertisement around the LVO, where that one sleazeball pick-up artist huckster was charging $50.00 for "List Coaching"? I'll bet you my dead grandma's skull that he had quite a few customers, so I can't even be mad at him for exploiting people. After all, the supply meets demand.

I honestly used to not be so jaded, but all it took was hosting a few events at my local FLGS (some were for charity, FFS) to make me realize that the "competitive" community of Warhammer 40k was outright destructive to gaming communities. Even guys that are competitive but still super-friendly and helpful will tell you this, which is usually why they're trying to be so friendly and helpful- so to try and make things better (and I admire that they try to do that).

auticus wrote:
For me personally my issue is that I am invested in the 40k lore, have spent a lot of money on models, and 40k is one of the only games you can play in town, but the rules balance is so bad that you are forced to play a certain build to have an enjoyable game.

The social contract in my city is to bring whats legal in the rules and git gud.

Having been a deeply invested tourney player that used to place high in the old GW GTs, I understand git gud. What I want is a game that reflects their narrative that doesn't require you to rotate your armies around to have a good game.

If you live in an area where you have players that understand the social construct and go "ok your force has units of chaos space marines because you liked those models, and you want to have an enjoyable game, so I won't bring my Adepticon tourney list" then you may think the game is in a good place.

If you are a GW game designer and live in the Ivory Tower and all of your games are with other GW games designers and white dwarf writers and hobbyists, you'll think the game is in a great place.

If you live in an area whose predominant mindset is git gud, you had better like rotating builds out, or be ok with losing before the game starts. I don't invest time and money into a game that is predetermined before the first turn by lists. Thats kind of an offshoot of professional wrestling IMO.

But that is taken as "pure balance is impossible, get wreckt". There are balance gaffes that points can't tackle, and those are bound to happen. Then there are things where you open the book and 19 seconds into reading unit profiles you bust out laughing because the SPIKE build is so obvious it rolls off the book and onto the table by itself.

We get it... GW wants to cater to the magic the gathering personas, and that means they have to give SPIKE his powergaming so they bake the powergaming into the game by giving OP builds to keep SPIKE spending money. But there has to be a better way.

The issue here is with that last part and a part earlier: First, the ivory tower. We all know, and GW is upfront about, the fact that they mostly play casual and narrative. They build a unit with one of each type of weapon because it looks cool. They field non-optimal choices because it fits the background. They rarely, if ever, will min/max even to such minor things like taking all combi-plasma on a squad of Terminators; instead you'll find them taking one combi-plasma, one combi-melta and one combi-flamer and a variety of melee weapons. However, the disconnect here is the players seem to want the oppsotie: A heavily competitive min/maxed game where listbuilding is king. Hence why GW turned to the ITC tournament organizers to help them balance the game. So the team writing the rules already have their own idea in their head of how the game is meant to be played, while throwing a bone to the more vocal (and maybe more popular we don't know) crowd that wants them to behave closer to Privateer Press' design team.

The other, perhaps larger, part is what you said about being able to flip open a book and immediatley see the broken combos. This is more intersting because it shows the designers aren't even aware of these combos, otherwise it wouldn't get through playtesting (even if they did very little playtesting, if it was that obvious it'd be caught) . The fact such glaring errors that anyone can see within moments is getting through indicates that the team either isn't aware of their own combos, or just don't care. And the fact their "playtesting" seems to be extremely narrow (it seems to, from people I've talked to who know folks who have done some testing, like white dwarf batreps. Here take this prebuilt army and play it against this other prebuilt army rather than build an army so you can see those broken combos) doesn't help this at all.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Karol wrote:
But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.

If you ever get a chance to go look at some old Rogue Trader era stuff, you'll see that Warhammer 40k was not designed to be a 'tournament competition' wargame. It was created to be a fairly basic system for moving a few dudes around and making them fight. It was a very flexible system that was really just a tool for people to use, pretty much an excuse to play a game with the cool little spaceman dudes. It was by no means a very innovative or tactically challenging system, in truth it was something that you could have little skirmish battles or you could even play it more like a very simple RPG.

The thing is, over time GW found out that people were having tournaments- which at the time were probably just for fun and the spirit of friendly competition. And then, predictably- just as it is with literally any other kind of competition, it begins to draw in individuals that will obsess over winning to the point where no price is too high... so if these guys are trying to use the system for something it's not really good for, but they're hurling money at it and they're willing to sell their own childrens' organs on the black market to buy it...

Well, let's just say if I'm selling bricks for a dollar each and you come by and tell me that those bricks are delicious and you'll take a dozen more... I'm not going to stop and say you shouldn't eat my bricks, that they're not food. Nope, I will hand you a dozen bricks and say "Enjoy your meal, sir. Do you need any napkins?"

Also, the game has bloated to the point where it's much harder to be competitive since the game isn't designed for all the things you can now take. Flyers, superheavies etc. are very polarizing. I have played in 2nd and 3rd edition when GW still had sponsored Rogue Trader Tournaments with prize support and more official GTs and it worked fairly alright then because it was a smaller game. IIRC the first GT of 3rd edition was won by a Dark Eldar (who were brand new then) list that was all mounted in Raiders. The game has grown exponentially since then and is unwieldy for competitive play, and even back then due to how the game was set up, it wasn't as bad.

I mean, at the end of the day- the competitive people with fragile egos could be presented with empirical evidence that Warhammer 40k is not designed to be balanced for fair competition... and they won't bat an eye, because that means there's always a way to have the imbalance working in their favor. I could sit here and speculate like some pseudo-psychiatrist that these individuals are absolute failures at every other aspect of their lives so they desperately strive to win at the little game of toy soldiers because if they lose that means they are 100% a loser, but I think that is probably inaccurate (but not by much in a lot of cases).

I mean, if you really want to see what kind of people your local 40k meta is? Host an event, and just watch. Host a doubles tournament for new players to partner with veteran players, and you will see veteran players drag in their disinterested girlfriend to stand there while he plays two of his armies in a tournament soup list. Host an Escalation League and watch some guy have 3 of his friends join it so he can rig all his games. Host a painting competition and wait until someone lets you know that your first place winner paid a painting service to do his model.

The best explanation of Warhammer 40k's Competitive Scene is this: You will find no shortage of people who will spend $500.00 to build a netlist for a tournament and win $50.00 store credit.

Did you ever see that advertisement around the LVO, where that one sleazeball pick-up artist huckster was charging $50.00 for "List Coaching"? I'll bet you my dead grandma's skull that he had quite a few customers, so I can't even be mad at him for exploiting people. After all, the supply meets demand.

This is still going on. Now it's $99/month (yes, per month) for a premium membreship with the group "Nights at the Game Table", who sponsors (yes, sponsors) Nick Nanavanti. The guy who runs that place (some rich business owner guy, he actually got flack a few months ago for doing a patreon or something to raise money to fund something or other when he was revealed he has a Maserati and is like pretty wealthy) is dead set on making 40k a professional sport or some gak. Also before that there was a $500 (I think it was 499?) charge to get, I gak you not, professional 40k coaching from Nick. Professional fething coaching for a fething game.

I honestly used to not be so jaded, but all it took was hosting a few events at my local FLGS (some were for charity, FFS) to make me realize that the "competitive" community of Warhammer 40k was outright destructive to gaming communities. Even guys that are competitive but still super-friendly and helpful will tell you this, which is usually why they're trying to be so friendly and helpful- so to try and make things better (and I admire that they try to do that).

In my opinion, competitive 40k in general is toxic as feth and downright cancerous for the hobby. I get a lot of flack for this but the way the competitive people approach the game is such the antithesis tohow the game is intended, that no amount of "sorry for not liking the game the way you do" excuses it. The game isn't able to really be played in this fashion and the fact that you can shoehorn it into it with ITC doesn't suddenly make it a great competitive game.

Wayniac 773029 10395528 wrote:

I do notice there is a vehemence against having to talk to your opponent. Usually, but always, I see this coming from people who like to build competitive style lists and the reason they hate it is because they might get asked to tone down their list or not bring the Castellan because their opponent wouldn't find that a fun game, and then they get all butthurt about it or go on a rant about how the other person needs to git gud and not stop them from fielding their Castallan because it's in the rules.

I think that specific way of talking is why I like to watch infinity being played. Its move, your reaction, move, your reaction. Kind of a like a song with repated paterns of people talking over and over again. GW games don't seem to have much of it. I don't know why, but sometimes I think w40k just sounds wrong when people play it. I don't know why though. MtG is another thing I like to watch, and again I don't know why. There is just non of the extra stuff and the rules of talking are very specific. sometimes when I play w40k, people ask me something non game related or in a strange way and my mind just does a full reset.

I don't even mind people playing with uber lists, it doesn't change much if they try to tone their stuff done or experiment with new stuff. What bothers me is when I am at home or at the store and comparing point costs of stuff vs stuff utility. Social game or not, I still don't know how GW came to the equation of a strike and a DW vet with a SS costing the same. Or maybe they don't have any formula, if w40k is suppose to be just a social event and not a game, the rules don't matter and you can just invent stuff. No testing needed, and considering they have 30 or more years to draw on, they can just copy past units, gear etc.

The thing is, over time GW found out that people were having tournaments- which at the time were probably just for fun and the spirit of friendly competition. And then, predictably- just as it is with literally any other kind of competition, it begins to draw in individuals that will obsess over winning to the point where no price is too high... so if these guys are trying to use the system for something it's not really good for, but they're hurling money at it and they're willing to sell their own childrens' organs on the black market to buy it...

I know my dad played in tournaments way back in the 90s, from his stories the game here was always serious buissnes. It just cost too much vs people income I think. And in the 90s the cost of a w40k to an avarge salary was mind blowing the avarge for 1990 was just a bit 100zl, and that is in todays money a bit over 25$. Kind of a explains why recasting is so popular even know, I think.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).

But why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW? If, by some miracle, GW produced a well balanced game with no rules ambiguity such that you could just show up for a pickup game against a random stranger and start playing would you want GW to deliberately errata some stuff to be less balanced so that you have to have pre-game negotiation again?

That's a bizarre criterion for determining failure. How would that even be possible without standardizing both the number of points required for each game and reducing the number of available missions to one? As others have said, there's no rational way to completely eliminate all forms of pre-game negotiation, and what kind of sane person would even want that?

You persistently ignore the difference between selecting options within the game (point level, mission, etc) and negotiating over how to approach the game. Providing 10 missions to choose from is fine game design. Having such poor balance that the players have to negotiate over how many powerful list options they're allowed to take before it is "too WAAC" and "not fun" is not.

This is more intersting because it shows the designers aren't even aware of these combos, otherwise it wouldn't get through playtesting

The designers for both AOS and 40k, as well as their playtester pool, are 100% tournament gamers. I believe that they don't know that these combos exist as much as I believe that the earth is flat.

These are intentionally baked in to appeal to the SPIKE player personality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

is dead set on making 40k a professional sport or some gak

This has been a thing since 2005 or so. It started with the indy GT circuit when GW folded their GT circuit, and a world championship with professional sponsors etc has always been the end goal.

Its just today its almost realized with streaming. In another 5-10 years, I'm going to call it that there are sponsored players making a good living doing nothing other than breaking 40k and maybe AOS if AOS gets up there.

Ben Curry and co are doing their best to make AOS a professional sport as well.

On one hand I think thats fine. On the other I realize that that just makes the SPIKE personality builds even more prevalent or at least puts them at the forefront.

Wayniac wrote:
This is still going on. Now it's $99/month (yes, per month) for a premium membreship with the group "Nights at the Game Table", who sponsors (yes, sponsors) Nick Nanavanti. The guy who runs that place (some rich business owner guy, he actually got flack a few months ago for doing a patreon or something to raise money to fund something or other when he was revealed he has a Maserati and is like pretty wealthy) is dead set on making 40k a professional sport or some gak. Also before that there was a $500 (I think it was 499?) charge to get, I gak you not, professional 40k coaching from Nick. Professional fething coaching for a fXXking game.

That's the exact guy I was talking about, I couldn't remember his name. I know he's got an import-wife and a girlfriend, or maybe the other way around (which I ain't even mad about that, more power to the guy- provided that it's legit and not some stunt so the girls are trying to make him look like an awesome guy that gets two chicks every night).

And I thought the cost of his 40k coaching was $50.00, or maybe my brain saw $500.00 and recalibrated it to $50.00 so it wasn't unbelievably absurd to the point of shattering my sanity.

Then again, one of the many things I learned from a close friend who was a manager of a very high-priced clothing retail store- overpricing a product is very often a marketing tactic by itself. People will see an insanely overpriced price tag and the very audacity of it has an effect on people. A customer sees it, and can't fathom why it would cost such a ludicrous amount of money... but there must be some reason why, perhaps some hidden value he simply isn't aware of. He may ask an employee, "Hey, why are these shirts $100.00?", to which the correct response from the employee is simply "Oh, these are Brofliction shirts!" As if that somehow explains it, and it doesn't, but the customer doesn't want to seem stupid or like some uncultured and uncool slob (something shopping malls are designed to make you feel), so he nods and says "Oh, yeah, well... okay..." and assumes there's some hidden value in it, and is willing to throw down the money. By the time he realizes he's an idiot that got conned into paying $100.00 for a distressed button-down with a skull and another man's name on the back- it's too late. In fact, so he feels less stupid he'll justify it and you're the moron for not understanding why this awesome Brofliction shirt is worth at LEAST $200 and he got it for a steal.

All I can say is this- as scummy and vile as Nick may seem, he's got a supply to meet a demand. And just like I tell the guys who rage about the pretty 'fake geek girls' that make thousands of dollars off donations from incel losers... don't hate the player, hate the game because a fool and his money are soon parted. By all means, if you've got yourself a scheme to bilk pathetic morons of their money- go for it. Anyone who wants to win at spaceman war toys bad enough to throw you enough cash to buy an entirely new army deserves to hate themselves when they eat Ramen noodle dinners for a few months.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
This is still going on. Now it's $99/month (yes, per month) for a premium membreship with the group "Nights at the Game Table", who sponsors (yes, sponsors) Nick Nanavanti. The guy who runs that place (some rich business owner guy, he actually got flack a few months ago for doing a patreon or something to raise money to fund something or other when he was revealed he has a Maserati and is like pretty wealthy) is dead set on making 40k a professional sport or some gak. Also before that there was a $500 (I think it was 499?) charge to get, I gak you not, professional 40k coaching from Nick. Professional fething coaching for a fXXking game.

That's the exact guy I was talking about, I couldn't remember his name. I know he's got an import-wife and a girlfriend, or maybe the other way around (which I ain't even mad about that, more power to the guy- provided that it's legit and not some stunt so the girls are trying to make him look like an awesome guy that gets two chicks every night).

And I thought the cost of his 40k coaching was $50.00, or maybe my brain saw $500.00 and recalibrated it to $50.00 so it wasn't unbelievably absurd to the point of shattering my sanity.

There are two different people here, you're confusing them. Nick himself was charging various prices for coaching (ranging from like $15 for a list critique up to I think like a few hundred for coaching). The other guy (Adam something, forget his last name) is the rich dude with the wife and/or girlfriend who is trying to make 40k into a sport with professional sponsorships and who now sponsors Nick and the cost for that is $99/month which includes like a monthly conference call. I don't fault Nick himself for the stuff (although the ridiculous "coaching" part was just silly), because I could actually see if you were going to a tournament like pay a little bit to have legit list advice from a top player. It's the "super secret members-only club" nonsense which feels like taking the piss especially because everything else I saw from that area was just the same sort of stuff you can get for free elsewhere (barring the "advice from the world champion" crap). I had a regular membership ($15/month I think?) for a while when it was just starting out to see what it was all about but nothing was there that I couldn't get for free elsewhere so I unsubbed. I'd rather pay $15/month for an MMO that I'll get use out of than a "members only" site with (at the time) amateur casual batreps and painting/reviews that you can get the equivalent of on Youtube for free.

Also @Auticus, I don't think the 40k team is tournament players. The AOS team yes, but the 40k team is still the same bunch of "forge the narrative" guys from the Kirby era I'm pretty sure. Robin Cruddace, Simon Grant, I forget who else. All the, as our favorite bird might say, CAAC people. It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.

Not sure if people find it funny, but "forge the narrative" in my country has a different meaning. Same as power gamer. A power games is a good player with good list, something to be envied. And forge the narrative is used for stuff like making fun of other people that their army doesn't work, or that they don't know how to play.

Makes it funny when you see posts from polish people on the GW face book, sometimes.

Karol wrote:
Not sure if people find it funny, but "forge the narrative" in my country has a different meaning. Same as power gamer. A power games is a good player with good list, something to be envied. And forge the narrative is used for stuff like making fun of other people that their army doesn't work, or that they don't know how to play.

Makes it funny when you see posts from polish people on the GW face book, sometimes.

LOL I believe I've mostly seen it used as an insulting term like to excuse the game having gak rules. Just "forge the narrative" is basically saying houserule away all the problems/talk with your opponent to fix the issues.

What makes it funnier is there is a podcast called Forge the Narrative that's like a complete competitive/tournament type podcast, the opposite of what "forge the narrative" means.

Wayniac wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well I think the problem is that in a lot of places you can either play some sort of warhammer or not play at all. But I could be wrong. We have 4 infinity players, and one of them brings all the terrain for the game, they never play with the GW ones. And they look realy nice, he even has small scifi cars and mini stores and chinese joint that looks like an actual take out box with a naked lady behind the counter.

But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.

Like lets say someone plays only ITC games, with ITC scenarios, such a person could be upset that his army is good when played outside of ITC, or has units that work really well again outside of ITC. But him being upset about it doesn't lend itself as an argument for W40k is bad everywhere around the world. I mean I kind of a get now why some people say that GK are a good army. Good army is not good good, but good to play against. It doesn't even matter what kind of an army is being played as long as the opponent is someone you like to spend time with.

Kind of a does suck for people who dislike spending time with other people in general LoL.

I do notice there is a vehemence against having to talk to your opponent. Usually, but always, I see this coming from people who like to build competitive style lists and the reason they hate it is because they might get asked to tone down their list or not bring the Castellan because their opponent wouldn't find that a fun game, and then they get all butthurt about it or go on a rant about how the other person needs to git gud and not stop them from fielding their Castallan because it's in the rules.

Maybe because we are still fielding a legal list?
Also why are we obligated to tone down? Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well I think the problem is that in a lot of places you can either play some sort of warhammer or not play at all. But I could be wrong. We have 4 infinity players, and one of them brings all the terrain for the game, they never play with the GW ones. And they look realy nice, he even has small scifi cars and mini stores and chinese joint that looks like an actual take out box with a naked lady behind the counter.

But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.

Like lets say someone plays only ITC games, with ITC scenarios, such a person could be upset that his army is good when played outside of ITC, or has units that work really well again outside of ITC. But him being upset about it doesn't lend itself as an argument for W40k is bad everywhere around the world. I mean I kind of a get now why some people say that GK are a good army. Good army is not good good, but good to play against. It doesn't even matter what kind of an army is being played as long as the opponent is someone you like to spend time with.

Kind of a does suck for people who dislike spending time with other people in general LoL.

I do notice there is a vehemence against having to talk to your opponent. Usually, but always, I see this coming from people who like to build competitive style lists and the reason they hate it is because they might get asked to tone down their list or not bring the Castellan because their opponent wouldn't find that a fun game, and then they get all butthurt about it or go on a rant about how the other person needs to git gud and not stop them from fielding their Castallan because it's in the rules.

Maybe because we are still fielding a legal list?
Also why are we obligated to tone down? Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?

This seems to always be the line in the sand. Who is the one who should compromise? The person who is bringing a competitive tournament list, or the person who is bringing a themed list based around the models they like?

It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.

Fair enough but the same issues exist in both games, so if AOS is the competitive tourney guys and 40k is the CAAC guys, they are both producing the same issue which means to me its deliberate. Thats what I get out of it anyway.

Wayniac wrote:

Also @Auticus, I don't think the 40k team is tournament players. The AOS team yes, but the 40k team is still the same bunch of "forge the narrative" guys from the Kirby era I'm pretty sure. Robin Cruddace, Simon Grant, I forget who else. All the, as our favorite bird might say, CAAC people. It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.

I'm pretty certain its the same "designers" rules writers for both AoS and 40k. The difference is half the team lead one project while the other half do the other project. Cruddace is lead rules for 40k but you have phill kelly, simon grant, jervis johnson and a couple of others. Only 6 of em. The difference is that they pay competitive players from both games to playtest for them and feedback and tweak the rules. For 40k they have a lot of playtesters like Reece and Mike brandt who both comp players and successful tournament organisers. These competitive minded players are responsible for the rules we have now.

A pro 40k circuit is only functional if there is enough people following it and watching live games online. As much as people here appear to hate this idea its not gonna slow this thing down. The numbers of people streaming live games on twitch just keep growing. The number of people attending 40k tournaments just keeps growing. The GW model sales...(you guessed it!) JUST KEEPS GROWING. GW would have to be stupid not to want to tap into this for the revenue it makes. This pro mentality sells models just like sponsoring a famous football player to wear special shoes will sell more shoes.

So many competitive minded players are running podcasts to support the game. Look at best in faction podcast where the host is a card carrying member of Nick Nanavati's coaching secret society. These same podcast hosts are then making money their own money patreon and people are paying! The amount of money spinning around 40k is getting a little crazy now but really, how bad is that? Why it bothers so many people confuses me.

It has little to no impact on my friday night game with my buddies.

"Maybe because we are still fielding a legal list?"
That's perfectly fine, if you're playing a legally-regulated match.

Not so perfectly fine, if you're playing a socially-regulated match.

Imagine going down to a local basketball court. You ask the people to play a pickup game. A bunch of random not-terribly-fit not-terribly-athletic people take you up on it. They agree to play you and your friends. You then bring in Kobe, Jordan, etc.

Sure, those randos might enjoy playing that game once to see how the big-shots play. But they certainly wouldn't enjoy running into that every week, every game.

Now, in this scenario, you didn't break any "legal" rules of basketball. But you ruined the game for everyone involved but you.

40k can be similar. You go to a major tournament? Bring whatever you can to do well. You're playing a PuG against people who just like to throw the ball around? Don't bring an NBA all-star team.

If you do, those randos who want to play pug basketball games will stop showing up. And so you've destroyed the meta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Also why are we obligated to tone down?"
You're not obligated to tone down. You're not obligated to play.

But they are not obligated to play you, either.

"Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?"
Because:
a) They want to see *their* army on the table, not some netlist hodgepodge
b) They want a more interesting game than just a rerun of whatever happened at the top tables last tourny
c) They enjoy how the game plays with more spicy unit selection instead of bland netlists repeating the same game every time
d) They don't have / can't reasonably get a FOTM army right now
e) Or maybe they just aren't good.

You're not obligated to play their game. Why would *they* be obligated to play *your* game?

Why it bothers so many people confuses me.

It bothers a lot of people because it further cements the idea that playing properly means playing optimally (which by itself is fine) but which also means ignoring 90% or so of the model line to play optimally (which is where the problem comes in).

If you have a private playgroup that doesn't care about the optimal builds, you are not touched by this.

However if your games come from going down to your FLGS or GW store, and thats the culture there, you have to either do it too, or eat your investment and go away. So that causes issues, and those issues are complained about.

If the game was better balanced, this schism would not be as bad.

External balance is bad because not every faction is viable at all. In both game systems (despite the tourney guys saying AOS is in a great place because the top 10 has a lot of armies, it still is only a fraction of the factions)

Internal balance is even worse because even if your faction does have a solid way to play optimally, the builds are narrow and exclude so much of the game to get there.

Both internal and external need looked at, and seriously. You have dozens of novels highliighting things like Tactical Marines and Chaos Space Marines, but if you use those in the game you are at a huge disadvantage. Things like that. They need to address those issues. Otherwise they are not following their own narrative, and they are perpetuating the schism.

I see we're at the point of the thread where we demonstrate the double standard of rule #1 where insulting CAAC players gets you banned, but feel free to rant about tournament players being "scummy and vile" for selling service or "pathetic morons" for buying it.

Karol wrote:



I think that specific way of talking is why I like to watch infinity being played. Its move, your reaction, move, your reaction. Kind of a like a song with repated paterns of people talking over and over again. GW games don't seem to have much of it. I don't know why, but sometimes I think w40k just sounds wrong when people play it. I don't know why though. MtG is another thing I like to watch, and again I don't know why. There is just non of the extra stuff and the rules of talking are very specific. sometimes when I play w40k, people ask me something non game related or in a strange way and my mind just does a full reset.

I play 40k an added in). Also mtg has actual rules and theres no interaction in the game that doesnt have clear rules associated with, there is none of the RAW vs RAI crap that 40k has (also the rules are constantly updated, meaning that you dont get the same problem that 40k has with the rules being split between tons of different books)d MTG and the main difference between the games is that in mtg both players can play during the same turn, interacting with the board is constant. in 40k when its your opponent's turn it basically means that youre waiting (with some minimal dicerolling

Try AOS where they put in a double turn so your opponent can go twice in a row. You get to sit there for two whole turns doing nothing but removing models.

auticus wrote:

Why it bothers so many people confuses me.

It bothers a lot of people because it further cements the idea that playing properly means playing optimally (which by itself is fine) but which also means ignoring 90% or so of the model line to play optimally (which is where the problem comes in).

In matched play absolutely. Playing a game between two people that are competing to win with objective win conditions laid out in the rules framework then playing properly is unavoidably playing optimally. The fact that so many codexes have so many units that are sub-optimal in the current ruleset is an aspect of legacy issues. GW ostensibly has multiple versions of the game in matched, narrative and open and the codex caters to all of those. It is perfectly reasonable that in matched play some units are garbage but if you want to play them go nuts in narrative and open, thats your game to do it.

It is definitely a problem that new players buying into the game can make choices in the rule of cool that turn out to be bad in competitive meta's but this isn't the fault of competitive gaming. This is where external balance fails us as a community and GW must fix this IMO.

However if your games come from going down to your FLGS or GW store, and thats the culture there, you have to either do it too, or eat your investment and go away. So that causes issues, and those issues are complained about.

There is a third option. If you don't like the game culture and you don't want to eat your investment then do this,

If you have a private playgroup that doesn't care about the optimal builds, you are not touched by this.

If you don't have a like minded group of players and you do not like competitive gaming and you can't find casual players in your local gaming meta the problem might not be the game it might be that you have too many restrictions.

Wayniac wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I honestly used to not be so jaded, but all it took was hosting a few events at my local FLGS (some were for charity, FFS) to make me realize that the "competitive" community of Warhammer 40k was outright destructive to gaming communities. Even guys that are competitive but still super-friendly and helpful will tell you this, which is usually why they're trying to be so friendly and helpful- so to try and make things better (and I admire that they try to do that).

In my opinion, competitive 40k in general is toxic as feth and downright cancerous for the hobby. I get a lot of flack for this but the way the competitive people approach the game is such the antithesis tohow the game is intended, that no amount of "sorry for not liking the game the way you do" excuses it. The game isn't able to really be played in this fashion and the fact that you can shoehorn it into it with ITC doesn't suddenly make it a great competitive game.

Honestly, attitudes like these are the most toxic thing in the 40k community at the moment, as far as I can tell. I'm a competitive player in the UK (I don't play ITC) and I have fun playing down my local FLGS as well as at the big tournaments. I use the most powerful list I can for a tournament and have a great time with a community that I know and like. You get to know your fellow tournament gamers and look forward to seeing them and finding out how they are doing. I've seen some of the attitudes that you guys describe, but not from competitive players that one sees at event after event, they are usually from local level 'big fish' who just like to throw their weight around (from my stance a type of casual player that takes competitive style lists, but doesn't play competitive games).

When playing down my local I take 2 armies, unless I have prearranged a game, as well as my Kill Team force. Depending on what level my opponent wants to play at I break out the appropriate force (one is tournament strong the other is casual ok/weak). I have great games with other competitive players as well as the most narrative-driven, don't care about the rules players we have. I prefer playing competitively and I always play to win, even when toning down my list and I don't see how this makes me toxic as feth and downright cancerous. On the whole, I find the competitive community a pretty welcoming one, with some outliers, much like the casual community.

 Nithaniel wrote:

auticus wrote:

Why it bothers so many people confuses me.

It bothers a lot of people because it further cements the idea that playing properly means playing optimally (which by itself is fine) but which also means ignoring 90% or so of the model line to play optimally (which is where the problem comes in).

In matched play absolutely. Playing a game between two people that are competing to win with objective win conditions laid out in the rules framework then playing properly is unavoidably playing optimally. The fact that so many codexes have so many units that are sub-optimal in the current ruleset is an aspect of legacy issues. GW ostensibly has multiple versions of the game in matched, narrative and open and the codex caters to all of those. It is perfectly reasonable that in matched play some units are garbage but if you want to play them go nuts in narrative and open, thats your game to do it.

And the issue with this is that Narrative and Open are such a tiny minority that this can't be the norm. Matched Play is, by and large, the default style. The others might as well not exist since they are such a tiny fraction of games played. So what you are basically saying is that it's okay some units are garbage in the vast, vast majority of situations across the majority of games played (and yes, I do agree this is largely a player problem for making Matched Play the go-to default, but it's also GW's fault for trying to push the idea that Matched Play is for any sort of balance, and the others are for not. It's like saying Option A guarantees you a good meal, Option B or C might get you a good meal if you cook it right but it might also be poison. The vast majority will pick Option A). That's just not acceptable. Besides, there is a difference between matched play and competitive play, despite GW lumping them together.

If you have a private playgroup that doesn't care about the optimal builds, you are not touched by this.
If you don't have a like minded group of players and you do not like competitive gaming and you can't find casual players in your local gaming meta the problem might not be the game it might be that you have too many restrictions.

This just sounds like another "git gud" argument. e.g. "Don't restrict yourself to liking space marines if they are bad in the game, don't take them even if you like them"

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Maybe because we are still fielding a legal list?
Also why are we obligated to tone down? Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?

Personally, as a competitive player, I relish taking weak lists and learning to play better. If you can do well with only Basic Marines versus a Knight, then you will do even better with a competitive list. So if your opponent wants to play a really weak list, my advice (if you are a competitive player) is bring something even weaker and see if you are up to the challenge. You'll get better at the game and probably have fun at the same time.

To answer your question though, you aren't obligated to do anything, the argument is a simple and logical one:

Premise 1: You want to play 40k
Premise 2: You want to have fun
Premise 3: Your opponent wants to play 40k
Premise 4: Your opponent wants to have fun
Premise 5: Playing against a competitive list is not fun for your opponent

Conclusion 1: You have a choice of not playing that person or toning down your list.

Let's add:

Premise 6: You can only have fun with a competitive list

Conclusion 2: You should not play that person.