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.

It's in a better place than it was and is still hands down the most popular miniature wargame ever, so I guess?

The 8th ed hype seems to have passed and the people who were hoping that 8th would get them back in have left as far as I can tell though.

GW is definitely still doing the things that make it gakky to be a GW customer too.

Blastaar wrote:
It is quite possible to view the past objectively.

It is. You weren't.

People have been separating "casual" vs "competitive" as long as professional sports have existed, and lemme tell ya, that's a long time. The internet's no different. From the very start there were people trying to set aside a place for themselves as better than everyone else, they were more "hardcore" or "1337" than everyone else, etc. The idea that the internet was somehow better in past days is pretty much the best example of rose-tinted glasses one could ask for.

As an aside, it is my hope that with the announcement of Apocalypse, since we will now have separate systems for small-scale 40k (Kill team) and large-scale 40k (Apoc) that GW will over time move 40k proper back to being a company-level game rather than have it try to be everything to everyone and as a result doing all things rather poorly (relatively speaking). 40k could never properly support flyers or superheavies, but if Apocalypse can then it means they can be weaned out of the main game and 40k can be kept at the proper scale where it performs the best.

Wayniac wrote:
As an aside, it is my hope that with the announcement of Apocalypse, since we will now have separate systems for small-scale 40k (Kill team) and large-scale 40k (Apoc) that GW will over time move 40k proper back to being a company-level game rather than have it try to be everything to everyone and as a result doing all things rather poorly (relatively speaking). 40k could never properly support flyers or superheavies, but if Apocalypse can then it means they can be weaned out of the main game and 40k can be kept at the proper scale where it performs the best.

The only real out of place/out of scale feel I get with apocalypse level units in "normal" 40K is with supersonic jets moving at cavalry pace and doing helicopter manouvers, being shot by flamers and charged by jumping men. They felt in place only in Epic, making actual fast assault/bombing runs over long distances and circling over outskirts of entire battlefield area, not around a tiny ruin in the middle.

"But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior."
There are a number of reasons.

For me, I don't like how competitive I get. I'm not too competitive in a non-Tourny game. The last tourny I went to, I was focused on making up points after a by in the first round gave me fewer points than most - so I was playing catchup. After beating the other undefeated list in the second to last round by a single point, I didn't even enjoy the last round - I was far too fixated on how many points i could bleed out of my opponent. That last round was an amazing mission, and a really fun set up; I should have had a blast. But I just didn't care; I had to win.

(I won that last round, but not by enough. The list I played against in the second-to-last-round milked a DE MSU spam for killpoints in the first round, where I got a by - and so had far too many more VP than I did. I got second.)

It's not about being afraid of losing. I aim for a 60/40 W/L ratio in casual games - losing isn't infrequent with the lists I run. I can, and do, enjoy the game win or lose. But when in a tourny, *I* get too competitive for *my* tastes. So I prefer non-tournies.

Another reason is you're less likely to run into the "standard lists" or the hypercompetitive people in non-tourny games. So you can typically have a much more fun time with a much less optimized list. In a PUG game, I can still take a standardish demicompany style Marine list, and have an interesting game that could go either way. In a tournament, the games are much less likely to be interesting.

Yet another reason is that smashing your list into mostly-the-same lists in back-to-back games all weekend. Win or lose. PUGs have much more diversity than you see in tournies.

I'm sure there are some people who don't want to do tournies because they need to win every time to have fun - but that's certainly not the only reason to prefer not playing in tournaments.

 Melissia wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
It is quite possible to view the past objectively.

It is. You weren't.

People have been separating "casual" vs "competitive" as long as professional sports have existed, and lemme tell ya, that's a long time. The internet's no different. From the very start there were people trying to set aside a place for themselves as better than everyone else, they were more "hardcore" or "1337" than everyone else, etc. The idea that the internet was somehow better in past days is pretty much the best example of rose-tinted glasses one could ask for.

This goes both ways. There are people who tell us that we aren't actually playing the game the right way because we focus on the analytical aspects, because we like systems and don't place the same value on the pretty pictures and badly written lore.

Seriously, try reading a Black Library novel, they're terrible.

Claiming that people are enjoying the hobby wrong because they're competitive is wrong.

Claiming that people are enjoying the hobby wrong because they're not competitive is wrong.

Isn't it the funniest thing that if they could get over losing, and the love of drama, Tournaments are Casual gamer's dream land?

Fun people, having a great time, that appreciate good modeling and painting, with prizes, that want to geek out over the game, with minimal drama, while playing games!

And if you still want your Drama, be a TO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Claiming that people are enjoying the hobby wrong because they're competitive is wrong.

Claiming that people are enjoying the hobby wrong because they're not competitive is wrong.

IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.

As long as they get over everything else about tournaments:

-The samey lists (I prefer my games varied)
-The back-to-back games - I want to play 1 or 2 games in a day, then do something else. Not 4 in a row all on the ame day
-The samey mission formats
-The codified and bland table layouts (variety, once again, is really important)
-The same list - I like changing up my list more often than once every half dozen games. I like changing points levels, too.
-The playing against an opponent instead of with another hobbyist
-The boxed-in game

There are a *lot* of reasons to prefer casual PUGs over tournaments.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
"IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play."
Then read a few other threads. Apparently I'm wrong to ever consider using ASM. And my opinion is worthless because I might not be Alaitoc. And that there's no point or value in anything that isn't competitive. And that the units/armies we enjoy that aren't competitive must be removed from the game.

You might not be one of the people saying that gak, but it's certainly around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For things that get said:
"Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?"

"All matches are legally regulated as long as you follow the basic rules for list construction. "Social regulation" is merely limits in your own head. "

"Also I love the whole "netlist" argument, the ultimate sign of virtue signaling."

"The narrative and open play don't exist because the rules for them are written worse than the match play."

"Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?"

""Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. "

That's just from a few pages of this thread.

The equivelent quotes exist the other way, too (people vilifying competitive players), of course.

Honestly, and I don't like to use this analogy, the real difference between casual and competitive is:

* One group is playing the game very laid back, not serious way and meshes with how the GW design studio themselves approach the game, and how the game was always intended to be when it was first conceived. This group plays much closer to the designer's intent.

* The other group, while not playing the game wrong, has deviated so far from how the game was designed and how the people designing the game are playing it that it has to have adjustments made specifically to allow it to function as a playable level as well as having outside people look at it to figure out what needs to be adjusted.

Everyone can play the game how they want, as it's meant to be flexible, but really only one group is doing it in the same way as the guys writing the rules. The other is technically playing the same game but in a decidedly different way.

IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.

I suppose this is very subjective but my experience is the opposite. Well... there are plenty of casual players that slam the tournament players yes. But in my neck of the woods some of the tournament players are just as nasty to anyone not bringing their A game all the time and will say things to shame casuals too.

Its really a two way street, not just one tribe does it while the other tribe is just the victim going about their merry way and enduring.

I think the real difference is that:

-One side, the [Casual] side, has some people who look down on and are dicks to [Competitive] players.

-On the other side, the [Competitive] side, has some people who look down on and are dicks to [Casual] players.

But that's true of almost every dichotomy out there.

Also true, is that there are many members of $group who are respectful of $otherGroup, and try to have productive, reasonable conversations. But $otherGroup hears the donkey-caves more than the non-donkey-caves, because that's the nature of $otherGroup.

I'm just gonna jump into a 24 page discussion without having read it and throw my opinion out there.

I don't think it's so much that people talking about casual vs competitive think the other is playing wrong it's that competitive level discussion by and far dominates discussion of the topic.

If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.

I consider myself semi-competitive I guess? I'm not a total fluff bunny but I do like to build lists around themes while trying to win which I think is what a majority of players do, but I basically never ask for advice online because it will always result in "drop X because Y is better". If I like sicarian duststalkers I don't want to be told to not take them and take more kastellans instead, I want to know how I can take my weird robot men and how to use them.

 Sim-Life wrote:


If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
.

This happens waaaayyyyyy too much around here.

Thats because the assumed default of any discussion on the internet in relation to warhammer or 40k is competitive tournament mode. You have to explicitly state that winning Adepticon is not your goal somewhere in your request.

The argument coming out of casual players is typically something like...."It's just a game"

There is nothing more frustrating than that because it is a self defeating argument. The argument is literally saying it is "just" a game - as in it doesn't warrant an amount of seriousness be applied.

Most of the problems in this game that affect even casual players are due to the fact seriousness isn't applied when making the rules.

auticus wrote:
Thats because the assumed default of any discussion on the internet in relation to warhammer or 40k is competitive tournament mode. You have to explicitly state that winning Adepticon is not your goal somewhere in your request.

Bolded & underlined for hilarity.

I think non-competitive threads should just state that in the title. might have to start.

I have in several forums suggested tags where one could put "competitive" or "casual" or whatever. So you could just tag your posts as casual when asking a question.

At least let the people understand your perspective when creating a post.

Because as we know, going [Competitive] Help me build a necron list is a lot different than [Narrative Campaign] Help me build a necron list.

Hell even [Competitive] Post on Table setup is going to be different than [Casual] Post on Table setup.

Alas. No forum or fb group ever did this

When people post lists to dakka - most state they are competitive or semi competitive.

Some do. Maybe many do. But I know a *lot* of threads I post in where someone has asked, I have to ask "are you asking to win tournaments, or are you asking to play casual games with your friends" because its just "help me make a list"

A lot of those coming from brand new players that have no idea that there is a difference and that there are casual and competitive lists instead of just lists because of the balance issues.

I feel like 8th is becoming too rock-paper-scissors.

GWs idea of balancing seems to be "if X list can counter Y list then we're balanced" but so many armies don't have access to the tech that X list has (vect for example) that it doesn't make Y (double shooting oblits/lootas for example) balanced outside of that.

There are too many faction specific abilities (death to the false emperor) that make some matchups (morty vs imperium) an imbalanced mess (his offensive capabilities double with a few strats/spells vs non-imperium armies).

I also think that GW isn't in a good place because list construction maters so much. A lot of the problem with "WAAC" players driving off "CAAC" players is the power difference between an optimized list (of any faction) vs a non-optimized list is mind boggling. GW has too many crap units out there and broken combos that are just too good. The internal balance of the codexes is sooooo off that two players of the same faction can put down armies and one list that has no chance of winning vs another casual list because the internal balance of the dex is so bad (gulliman sm vs non-gulliman sm easy example but there are so many).

I don't think GW should get a pass on this. Maybe the codexes are hard to balance against one another but getting the internal balance of a codex right is something that GW really needs to pay attention to.

Wayniac wrote:
* One group is playing the game very laid back, not serious way and meshes with how the GW design studio themselves approach the game, and how the game was always intended to be when it was first conceived. This group plays much closer to the designer's intent.

* The other group, while not playing the game wrong, has deviated so far from how the game was designed and how the people designing the game are playing it that it has to have adjustments made specifically to allow it to function as a playable level as well as having outside people look at it to figure out what needs to be adjusted.

If this was an attempt at a neutral statement it was a pretty spectacular failure.

Translation:

You system people are ruining the game for everyone else and not playing the way GW intended.

In response, I would argue that GW opened themselves up to systemic criticism the moment they slapped the word tournament on a game event. Otherwise, call it an RPG, call it a painting competition, call it a masturbatory tribal dance, whatever.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm just gonna jump into a 24 page discussion without having read it and throw my opinion out there.

I don't think it's so much that people talking about casual vs competitive think the other is playing wrong it's that competitive level discussion by and far dominates discussion of the topic.

If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.

That's because Dakkanaughts view discussion as a competitive sport. Dakkanaughts could give a flying feth about the actual topic, as long as a they win the argument.

Of course I have to win at discussions, otherwise I might learn something!

"There is nothing more frustrating than that because it is a self defeating argument. The argument is literally saying it is "just" a game - as in it doesn't warrant an amount of seriousness be applied. "

There are scads of things I find more frustrating than that.

First, it's not a self defeating argument. It defeats several structures of argument, but defeats neither itself nor the general concept of discussing the game or even tactics/strategies.

Second, a great deal of weight(/seriousness) can be payed to concerns other than winning tournies. Some people put weight into fluff. Others, style. Visuals. Environments. Storytelling. Socialization. There are way more than one aspect for which this game/hobby can be enjoyed. This dismissal of non-competitive concerns asserts - demands - that no weight/seriousness is *allowed* to be payed to any concern beyond competitiveness.

Third, putting the game into perspective does demand that you not violently overthrow the world order to win a game, but it doesn't limit how much thought/energy of *your own* you put into the game or the discussion - up until the point where you're impugning on someone else. In other words, "it's just a game" is a reminder not to be an donkey-cave to the person/people you're disagreeing. And is a reminder to consider if competitiveness is worth whatever it is you're giving up to do it. But it is *not* a demand that you not discuss competitiveness any further. That's just being obtuse.

Third, I find being shouted down when discussing the finer points of how best to use ASM, in a conversation specific to how best to use them assuming you *will* use them, based on the argument that nobody is allowed to use them because they're a bad choice more frustrating.

I find being told that I'm a liar when claiming a highschool friend of mine was good at math, but lazy enough to pull out a calculator to add a bunch of random numbers - because apparently there is no possibility that anyone could decide they don't want to do something they could actually do - more frustrating.

I find being told that there exists no Eldar player who isn't a cheesemongering WAAC more frustrating.

(I find being told that there exists no RealMarine player who isn't a fluffbunny CAAC just as frustrating as the Eldar one above.)

Saying "It's just a game" is a suggestion that you make sure you've got a handle on perspective. There are many, many things that get said (to casuals and competitive players alike) that are *much* more offensive / worse /frustrating.

Fortunately, there's also a lot of interesting things people say here, too. I'm a casual player, but there are plenty of competitive players I've read interesting and insightful posts from. It's really just a few toxic individuals who go way too far.

(Edit: And, finally, fifth, I find off-by-one errors to be the most frustrating of them all.)

Reemule wrote:
IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.

Offline, sure. I see plenty of sneering here on Dakka.

 Melissia wrote:

Reemule wrote:
IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.

Offline, sure. I see plenty of sneering here on Dakka.

this is so painfully obvious but those who do are oblivious.

 Melissia wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
It is quite possible to view the past objectively.

It is. You weren't.

People have been separating "casual" vs "competitive" as long as professional sports have existed, and lemme tell ya, that's a long time. The internet's no different. From the very start there were people trying to set aside a place for themselves as better than everyone else, they were more "hardcore" or "1337" than everyone else, etc. The idea that the internet was somehow better in past days is pretty much the best example of rose-tinted glasses one could ask for.

I was speaking more broadly, not of online forums specifically. And I really wouldn't know about forums "way back when," because I didn't spend time in them until much more recently. It was here on dakka that I discovered that gamers now exist within two factions constantly at war with each other because those people play the game "wrong." And it is immensely counterproductive.

This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules. Am not speaking about GK. But lets say they make a good codex like eldar, and it has something in it like, I don't know storm guardians.

Karol wrote:
This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules. Am not speaking about GK. But lets say they make a good codex like eldar, and it has something in it like, I don't know storm guardians.

Nobody is sure, and GW's design team isn't transparent so they don't give their reasoning.