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.

Wow... What a self righteous annoyingly arrogant person. She actualy thinks CDProjekt needs to change their content and shes the one to tell them how do it.."the whole of the internet will drag you" She seems ather delusional about her influence.
Its their creation they can do whatever they want. Its callled free speech.

Back on topic. I can see the pallarels to video gaming now..
As been echoed, Its the competative nature to do with everything. The online community itself and the way it communicated about all aspects of society is really off the rails.

Nurglitch wrote:

 auticus wrote:
You can't label the entire "competitive 40k" community by the words of a few. Just as you cannot label the entire casual community by the words of a few.

It is a well known truism that among the human race there are undesirables that attack others for not living or liking the things that that individual does.

It is known.

Indeed, even Jon Snow knows this.

 Argive wrote:

Spoiler:

Audustum wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think the general level of cruelty on display is something unique to social media, but I've seen the competitive mindset drive players from games - even when the competitive players were otherwise amiable people. They can be great guys, but then curb stomp a newbie while overloading them with tons of information about what they did wrong, what they need to buy next, how to play better, and so on.

And I've seen the casual mindset drive people from games with endless unwritten rules about what is "cheese", poor knowledge of the rules, condescending attitudes towards new players who are interested in tournaments, etc.

I think it's worth pointing out that the individual personal relationships players have with each other is often more important than some vague dichotomy like 'casual vs competitive.' That tends to get left out for some reason.

Peregrine wrote:

sqorgar wrote:In video games, if we were a bit more deliberate in who's opinions we listened to, people like Anita Sarkeesian wouldn't have ruined a generation of games.

Lolwut? This is a joke, right? Tell me you don't seriously believe that gamergate nonsense...

Yeah, this threw me for a loop. My impression of Anita Sarkeesian is that she'd like it if women were treated like people rather than aliens. Yet somehow there's people that believe she's determined to ruin gaming for...reasons.

I believe it boils down to:

1. She's seemingly lies about her history to suit her commercial advantage (recorded videos of her stating she did not begin gaming until 2010 Vs. writing in the New York Times that she begged for a GameBoy in the 1990's).

2. Her claims of feminism ring hollow when she used to be the 'Seminar Manager/Coordinator' of Bart Baggett and helped him organize seminars on 'hand-writing analysis', including as a way to improve love lives. Mr. Bagget, of course, also published books to teach men how to get women to sleep with them, including by use of Neuro Linguistic Programming (junk pseudo-sicience in my opinion). It strikes as a bit of odd company for an ardent feminist. I believe Mr. Bagget claims he was just being funny.

3. She's been accused of ripping off the work of others for her own benefit and/or cherry picks data heavily without consulting the Let's Play/Long Players she is actually taking data from.

4. There's still a ton of controversy around her Kickstarter. It was funded on June 16, 2012. To this day, only videos 1, 5 and 8 are complete (of supposedly 12). This Kickstarter received $160,000. There are also claims that the videos that were made are using copyrighted artwork and other intellectual property without license or permission as well.

5. This dovetails with Femnist Frequency, her non-profit and the organization behind her kick starter, not actually receiving non-profit status until 2014, 2 years after she got the money.

Obviously, she's addressed these at one point or another and the flame wars rage on, but for people who dislike her that's what it boils down to the belief that she is a fake who just makes controversies to rake in money before moving on to the next.

Wow... What a self righteous annoyingly arrogant person. She actualy thinks CDProjekt needs to change their content and shes the one to tell them how do it.."the whole of the internet will drag you" She seems ather delusional about her influence.
Its their creation they can do whatever they want. Its callled free speech.

Back on topic. I can see the pallarels to video gaming now..
As been echoed, Its the competative nature to do with everything. The online community itself and the way it communicated about all aspects of society is really off the rails.

it's especially hillarious considering the creator of cyberpunk universe defended CDPR.......

Also rumor has she's broke soooooooooooo..


Anyways this has nothing to do with competitive mindset or not.
It is the exclusive groups of wannabees that decided that "THEY" only know HOW to play 40k and that filthy CASUALS are morons.
Case in point the opposite can also happen, these are fringe groups and considering that i got introduced to 40 k by a competitive dude should prove you wrong. In fact he always toned down lists depending on enemy or match he wanted, he regularly played fluffy little campagins with houserules galore but also practice matches. Was a nice dude. In essence my point is fringe groups and voices heard the loudest are often not the propper picture just broad strokes of Black and white.

 Argive wrote:
Its their creation they can do whatever they want. Its callled free speech.

That is not what free speech means. Freedom of speech means that the government can not censor you or punish you for speaking, it does not mean that individuals are not permitted to criticize you or tell you to change what you're saying. Anita Sarkeesian is not a government official and has no power to compel obedience. She is merely a private citizen expressing her personal opinions. She has every right to post her disapproval of a company's product and demand that they pay her to approve everything they do, the game company is free to consider that as they wish. If a private business voluntarily decides that putting all of their content through her review process would be a good business strategy then there is nothing about this decision that contradicts the right to freedom of speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
It is the exclusive groups of wannabees that decided that "THEY" only know HOW to play 40k and that filthy CASUALS are morons.

Just like certain casual players decided that only "THEY" know HOW to play 40k and that filthy TOURNAMENT PLAYERS are morons.

Spoletta wrote:
Here, results from the last 94 player event of 2 weeks ago:

https://downunderpairings.com/Tournament.php?TournamentID=656

1st place: DE with CW airwing
2nd place: Tau
3rd place: Leviathan and GSC
4th: Chaos undivided
5th: Sisters and knights with loyal 32
6th: Harlequins and CWE
7th: Space wolves and Knights
8th: Thousand sons, Alpha legion and some daemons
9th: Mono DE
10th: Mono DE

If this isn't an healthy state of balance, i don't know what it is.

They did just nerf the two lists that would have taken 8 of the ten places before though, so give it a bit of time to stagnate again.

stratigo wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Here, results from the last 94 player event of 2 weeks ago:

https://downunderpairings.com/Tournament.php?TournamentID=656

1st place: DE with CW airwing
2nd place: Tau
3rd place: Leviathan and GSC
4th: Chaos undivided
5th: Sisters and knights with loyal 32
6th: Harlequins and CWE
7th: Space wolves and Knights
8th: Thousand sons, Alpha legion and some daemons
9th: Mono DE
10th: Mono DE

If this isn't an healthy state of balance, i don't know what it is.

They did just nerf the two lists that would have taken 8 of the ten places before though, so give it a bit of time to stagnate again.

I've linked this numerous times in this thread... but check https://www.40kstats.com/top-4s

Ynnari and Castellan lists were certainly present, but not overbearingly so, in lists before the April FAQ came out.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Its their creation they can do whatever they want. Its callled free speech.

That is not what free speech means. Freedom of speech means that the government can not censor you or punish you for speaking, it does not mean that individuals are not permitted to criticize you or tell you to change what you're saying. Anita Sarkeesian is not a government official and has no power to compel obedience. She is merely a private citizen expressing her personal opinions. She has every right to post her disapproval of a company's product and demand that they pay her to approve everything they do, the game company is free to consider that as they wish. If a private business voluntarily decides that putting all of their content through her review process would be a good business strategy then there is nothing about this decision that contradicts the right to freedom of speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
It is the exclusive groups of wannabees that decided that "THEY" only know HOW to play 40k and that filthy CASUALS are morons.

Just like certain casual players decided that only "THEY" know HOW to play 40k and that filthy TOURNAMENT PLAYERS are morons.

Here I was thinking trying to cause economic damage through attacking someones reputation/attempting to exert social pressure is not in and of itself stifling free speech/creativity or a form of censorship.
I gues I used the wrong term.

Anyhow... it seems this will devolve into name calling no matter how many good thought out posts are made.

 Argive wrote:
Here I was thinking trying to cause economic damage through attacking someones reputation/attempting to exert social pressure is not in and of itself stifling free speech/creativity or a form of censorship.
I gues I used the wrong term.

Criticism is not censorship. And people "try to cause economic damage" like that all the time. It is now censorship any time a 40k player posts a complaint about GW's prices or rules quality?

What are you talking about? Setting up a organisation and taking government grant money, (therefore Defacto taking agency from the government to some degree...?) to try and push an agenda to change/restrict content absolutely is akin to censorship. Call it what you want of course you are welcome to your opinions.

I'm beginning to see a pattern mirroring the person in question.

The issues with gaming is marketing gak, loot boxes, DLC BS.. The biggest issue is parents not taking responsibility what their kids play and not raising their children properly and getting fish hooked by clickbait and the newest outrage. Not the content itself which is aimed at adults in most cases...

An individual grumbling about rules/cost in 40k is not the same as an individual starting a group because everyone should be offended by a model that doesn't suit their view point. Changing that creation = censorship.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Its their creation they can do whatever they want. Its callled free speech.

That is not what free speech means. Freedom of speech means that the government can not censor you or punish you for speaking, it does not mean that individuals are not permitted to criticize you or tell you to change what you're saying. Anita Sarkeesian is not a government official and has no power to compel obedience. She is merely a private citizen expressing her personal opinions. She has every right to post her disapproval of a company's product and demand that they pay her to approve everything they do, the game company is free to consider that as they wish. If a private business voluntarily decides that putting all of their content through her review process would be a good business strategy then there is nothing about this decision that contradicts the right to freedom of speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
It is the exclusive groups of wannabees that decided that "THEY" only know HOW to play 40k and that filthy CASUALS are morons.

Just like certain casual players decided that only "THEY" know HOW to play 40k and that filthy TOURNAMENT PLAYERS are morons.

Stop commenting if you can't be bothered to read one fully.

Okay people lets please remember the rules, number 1 is be polite, number 2 is stay on topic. The topic here is Competitive 40k and being polite is mandatory.
Thanks,
ingtaer.

In my city there are a few gaming clubs, a Warhammer store and there used to be a FLGS with gamin tables too. Since I play or played MtG, UFS, WFB, W40K, Warmachine and Blood Bowl all at the largest tournaments in the area I came across tons of players from all the different gaming groups and I have had no problems with any of them.

So I have some friends who only move in the magic community, some only in blood bowl community. One plays in "that" 40k group and another plays his 40k in another group but I know them individually from a card game. So I hear these discussions all the time. I can hear them talk about how "competitive" or "rude" this or that gaming group is and that group says the same thing back. It has nothing to do with competitive or casual gamers being "worse". It's just people who identify as a group and talk gak about an outside group. Like in sports, politics, friends, school, work. It's just the same.

I only identify as a gamer who likes to play games I find fun and not with any specific group so there is no real clash between my identity and my opponents even if they see themselves as a member of a certain group. Some games I play super competitive like Warmachine and Magic and others like GW games really laid back but sometimes I just go and do a casual monday night draft in magic or try to do my hardest 40k list and play it to the best of my ability at a tournament. I don't really identify in any camp so I have never had problems interacting with top tournament players, ETC players in GW games or PT/GP grinders in magic, or the more casual gamers who only use fluffy lists or thematic decks.

Got completely crushed a week ago at round 1 of a 40k tournament against a former ETC player. I conceded 15 min into the game and then we brought out an old card game that has been dead for a decade and played some really fun games with that while waiting for round 2. From super competitive to super casual in the time it took for me to remove my last 7 models from the table. Most tournament players also play more laid back games and almost none of them sees themselves as anything else than a gamer.

Most friction I have ever seen is between more casual players in any given game system. Not necessary from ill will but more casual groups usually have more house rules and expectations on behavior that differs more wildly from group to group and even between individuals than in more competitive groups. Just try to get a fair game of casual EDH in magic with more casual players who don't know each other. Every one will say that any deck better than theirs is unfair and that they are the only one with a truly fun and casual deck and almost no one will agree on what is a good level to play at. If you take competitive players instead and say that it will be a competitive game they will probably all turn up with good decks at a similar power level and have a better time than the casuals. You can probably do the same thing with an escalation league or a casual tournament and get the same results. Who haven't been to a small local tournament with like 15 local players who have agreed to tone it down and then a 16th player out of town shows up with the toughest list possible.

Some better communication and understanding of different gaming groups could resolve most of the drama. Like others have said before. Many of those labeled competitive isn't truly competitive players or actual tournament players. Some of them are probably just other casual players that just play with different house rules that might seem more competitive from the outside. Like my WFB friends played against some people at the GW store from a local club, probably 2-3 out of 50+ people in that club, and for the last 13 years they have called people from that club power gamers while I have mostly played Blood Bowl with people from that same club and my experience is almost the opposite. But it's fun to casually bash them so my friends don't really want to change their mind cause then they can't complain about that game 13 years ago when they were 15 years old and lost to someone older and more experienced.

 Horst wrote:

stratigo wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Here, results from the last 94 player event of 2 weeks ago:

https://downunderpairings.com/Tournament.php?TournamentID=656

1st place: DE with CW airwing
2nd place: Tau
3rd place: Leviathan and GSC
4th: Chaos undivided
5th: Sisters and knights with loyal 32
6th: Harlequins and CWE
7th: Space wolves and Knights
8th: Thousand sons, Alpha legion and some daemons
9th: Mono DE
10th: Mono DE

If this isn't an healthy state of balance, i don't know what it is.

They did just nerf the two lists that would have taken 8 of the ten places before though, so give it a bit of time to stagnate again.

I've linked this numerous times in this thread... but check https://www.40kstats.com/top-4s.

Ynnari and Castellan lists were certainly present, but not overbearingly so, in lists before the April FAQ came out.

Well, that list your sharing is also misleading since those ITC results were prior to how they were labeling factions. You had grey knight armies with one supreme command of GK just to game that system. Which is hilarious, seeing competitive gamesmanship applied to army classification lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is a really good discussion about competitive 40k BTW guys. Good feedback on both sides.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Horst wrote:

And you guys say tournament players are toxic, lol. Talking down about people who don't play the game in the same way as you is REALLY different from the tournament players who talk down to casuals....

I don't care how they play (though I won't ever agree with it). But I don't like what competitive players do to the games. I don't generally use the word "toxic", but there's no getting around the fact that when competitive players become the dominant play style of a game, it is poisonous to the long term health of the game.

I can't tell you the number of people I've heard say that they quit playing games because of this attitude. Tom Vassel has a notorious example of one player - just one person - ruining Netrunner for him and Sam Healey within a few minutes, despite greatly enjoying the game and playing it. If one player can delete two players, is that healthy for the game? Is a single competitive player worth two casual players? And a single overly competitive player can ruin the game for more than just two people over his many years - I can't tell you how many Warmachine players I never saw a second time. I doubt I could ever have such a immediate and damaging affect on the game, regardless of what I did.

Honestly, look at the winning lists for recent tournaments. There is quite a bit of variation. Even if a list has a similar "core", almost every player puts a different spin on their list over someone else's. It's incredibly rare for 2 players to play the same "netlist".

If everybody is driving the same sports car, does it matter if they are painted slightly different shades of red?

I want to comment on this point. Because i don't think this is a fair comparison. The problem you are describing is something that will be inherent in literally any game, or any type. Some people are jerks. And they will ruin the fun of people trying to get into a game. This could happen in a pick up basketball game in the park, where one bad egg on the court makes two or three people never want to play basketball again. I've met a lot of competitive players who are genuinely a lot of fun to play with and are good people. Its about the attitude people take into the game with them.

In 40K, not all competitive players are jerks, and not all jerks are competitive players. BUT the majority of jerks in the 40K community consider themselves competitive players. My prior post about the culture of competitive gaming was not to argue that all competitive players are bad, merely to point out that the competitive culture is attractive to certain types of negative attitudes. This is why many negative voices will be heard in competitive communities. The competitive community will always exist, and it will always attract the worst, its just the way it is for any player v player game.

To people who brought up the Gamergate, I applaud you. Thank you for helping us realize that we table top gamers share a lot of the worst elements of video game culture as well. Regardless of what you think of a female game reviewers thoughts, women have just as much right to be wrong about games as I do, and they have just as much right to voice those wrong opinions as anyone else. Furthermore, reviewing a video game through a different metric, even if that metric is feminism, is not inherently wrong either. Someone being blasted and attacked for voicing an unpopular opinion is alienating to the general community and further isolates gaming communities from general society. Which in turns feeds into elitism and some sort of perverse class culture.

Sadly, Gamergate isn't as off topic as you might think. This is a thread about toxic behavior in the 40k competitive community as compared to the broader 40K community, the fact that it is so easy for parts of our community to embrace a toxic ideology such as Gamergate demonstrates that toxic isolationist ideologies have strains that run deeper throughout the entire community, and that is an uncomfortable truth. Table Top games have a pretty rough competition with video games, and honestly we should strive to be as accepting as possible. We need people to feel welcome in our circles, and want to join in those circles and... well buy armies and play games. War gaming groups outside of the big ones tend to be more welcomeing as well, because they are even more desperate for players.

What this talk about Gamergate has reminded me of, is that more than just the competitive community can be toxic and unwelcoming to different groups of people. Its something we all need to look at and make sure that we are creating an environment that people feel welcome in. Its not just competitive communities, its an issue with "nerd" culture at large. We need to work together to become more welcoming so our hobby and passion can grow and flourish.

The key difference is TT games are played face to face.
Online abuse and cyberbullying are runnin amok, unchecked and are spirling out of control not because of inherent content of games, but because people are removed through the shield of annonymity and think they have a license to act like A Holes to get their kicks as in the real world they are not able to or allowed to...
The issue in the OP was people saying horrid things online about 40k players.

I dont think anyone has cited example of being spoken to or being treated in a similiar way whilst actualy playing 40k. Loosing really badly is not the same as being called names and getting abuse hurled at you.
That is becasue the peole that are most obnoxiously vocal online are on an ego trip. They are trying to make themselves feel better through some sort of twisted idea that they can talk down to someone. Cyber bullies are weak minded cowards, when dealing with a person face to face they would not say anything.

If the examples cited would happen in a local club environment in 99% of communities you just wouldint allow that person back in. I think this is a fair assesment.
Sure some people might be unfortunate to play in some juvenile run outlier club but I would take a stab in the dark and say it is less than 1% because of the resources needed and the average age of gamers (going by the poll we did). Anecdotal evidence of an outlier event is not a good representation of the greater whole..

I do agree though, we should all do our part in making better communities. Online and offline.
For me that would include not risng to the bait and arguing with people endlessly over trivial stuff, I gotta take a leaf out of my own book

 Horst wrote:

stratigo wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Here, results from the last 94 player event of 2 weeks ago:

https://downunderpairings.com/Tournament.php?TournamentID=656

1st place: DE with CW airwing
2nd place: Tau
3rd place: Leviathan and GSC
4th: Chaos undivided
5th: Sisters and knights with loyal 32
6th: Harlequins and CWE
7th: Space wolves and Knights
8th: Thousand sons, Alpha legion and some daemons
9th: Mono DE
10th: Mono DE

If this isn't an healthy state of balance, i don't know what it is.

They did just nerf the two lists that would have taken 8 of the ten places before though, so give it a bit of time to stagnate again.

I've linked this numerous times in this thread... but check https://www.40kstats.com/top-4s.

Ynnari and Castellan lists were certainly present, but not overbearingly so, in lists before the April FAQ came out.

Your link 404s

 Argive wrote:

Spoiler:

 akaean wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Horst wrote:

And you guys say tournament players are toxic, lol. Talking down about people who don't play the game in the same way as you is REALLY different from the tournament players who talk down to casuals....

I don't care how they play (though I won't ever agree with it). But I don't like what competitive players do to the games. I don't generally use the word "toxic", but there's no getting around the fact that when competitive players become the dominant play style of a game, it is poisonous to the long term health of the game.

I can't tell you the number of people I've heard say that they quit playing games because of this attitude. Tom Vassel has a notorious example of one player - just one person - ruining Netrunner for him and Sam Healey within a few minutes, despite greatly enjoying the game and playing it. If one player can delete two players, is that healthy for the game? Is a single competitive player worth two casual players? And a single overly competitive player can ruin the game for more than just two people over his many years - I can't tell you how many Warmachine players I never saw a second time. I doubt I could ever have such a immediate and damaging affect on the game, regardless of what I did.

Honestly, look at the winning lists for recent tournaments. There is quite a bit of variation. Even if a list has a similar "core", almost every player puts a different spin on their list over someone else's. It's incredibly rare for 2 players to play the same "netlist".

If everybody is driving the same sports car, does it matter if they are painted slightly different shades of red?

I want to comment on this point. Because i don't think this is a fair comparison. The problem you are describing is something that will be inherent in literally any game, or any type. Some people are jerks. And they will ruin the fun of people trying to get into a game. This could happen in a pick up basketball game in the park, where one bad egg on the court makes two or three people never want to play basketball again. I've met a lot of competitive players who are genuinely a lot of fun to play with and are good people. Its about the attitude people take into the game with them.

In 40K, not all competitive players are jerks, and not all jerks are competitive players. BUT the majority of jerks in the 40K community consider themselves competitive players. My prior post about the culture of competitive gaming was not to argue that all competitive players are bad, merely to point out that the competitive culture is attractive to certain types of negative attitudes. This is why many negative voices will be heard in competitive communities. The competitive community will always exist, and it will always attract the worst, its just the way it is for any player v player game.

To people who brought up the Gamergate, I applaud you. Thank you for helping us realize that we table top gamers share a lot of the worst elements of video game culture as well. Regardless of what you think of a female game reviewers thoughts, women have just as much right to be wrong about games as I do, and they have just as much right to voice those wrong opinions as anyone else. Furthermore, reviewing a video game through a different metric, even if that metric is feminism, is not inherently wrong either. Someone being blasted and attacked for voicing an unpopular opinion is alienating to the general community and further isolates gaming communities from general society. Which in turns feeds into elitism and some sort of perverse class culture.

Sadly, Gamergate isn't as off topic as you might think. This is a thread about toxic behavior in the 40k competitive community as compared to the broader 40K community, the fact that it is so easy for parts of our community to embrace a toxic ideology such as Gamergate demonstrates that toxic isolationist ideologies have strains that run deeper throughout the entire community, and that is an uncomfortable truth. Table Top games have a pretty rough competition with video games, and honestly we should strive to be as accepting as possible. We need people to feel welcome in our circles, and want to join in those circles and... well buy armies and play games. War gaming groups outside of the big ones tend to be more welcomeing as well, because they are even more desperate for players.

What this talk about Gamergate has reminded me of, is that more than just the competitive community can be toxic and unwelcoming to different groups of people. Its something we all need to look at and make sure that we are creating an environment that people feel welcome in. Its not just competitive communities, its an issue with "nerd" culture at large. We need to work together to become more welcoming so our hobby and passion can grow and flourish.

The key difference is TT games are played face to face.
Online abuse and cyberbullying are runnin amok, unchecked and are spirling out of control not because of inherent content of games, but because people are removed through the shield of annonymity and think they have a license to act like A Holes to get their kicks as in the real world they are not able to or allowed to...
The issue in the OP was people saying horrid things online about 40k players.

I dont think anyone has cited example of being spoken to or being treated in a similiar way whilst actualy playing 40k. Loosing really badly is not the same as being called names and getting abuse hurled at you.
That is becasue the peole that are most obnoxiously vocal online are on an ego trip. They are trying to make themselves feel better through some sort of twisted idea that they can talk down to someone. Cyber bullies are weak minded cowards, when dealing with a person face to face they would not say anything.

If the examples cited would happen in a local club environment in 99% of communities you just wouldint allow that person back in. I think this is a fair assesment.
Sure some people might be unfortunate to play in some juvenile run outlier club but I would take a stab in the dark and say it is less than 1% because of the resources needed and the average age of gamers (going by the poll we did). Anecdotal evidence of an outlier event is not a good representation of the greater whole..

I do agree though, we should all do our part in making better communities. Online and offline.
For me that would include not risng to the bait and arguing with people endlessly over trivial stuff, I gotta take a leaf out of my own book

Trust me, being a woman in a gaming group can be quite the rough time with a bunch of socially awkward fellows making gross passes at you. It won't be everyone, but in only takes one or two to really ruin the experience, and they are not usually called out for it and it is one of the biggest reasons ladies won't show up.

stratigo wrote:

Your link 404s

Derp. The period after the link breaks it.

I have a problem with the casual vs. competitive spat because I see it used all the time to justify poor rules design from Games Workshop. The attitude seems to be "it's just a beer and pretzels game, it doesn't need to be well designed!"

I really strongly disagree with that. I am not a GW gamer any more because I find their games so poorly designed at what they are trying to do (and to be honest the quality of the writing has gone down so much that any sense of narrative is utterly debased). I do not want to spend ages painting an army based on a faction I am enthusiastic for because of aesthetics and story (the things that hook most of us on a given faction) to find out I am relegated to a punching bag for another person who happened to like the aesthetic and story of a faction that for whatever reason the "design studio" (ie. a bunch of unprofessional hacks) decided would be vastly overpowered or designed for a totally different paradigm mid edition.

That is just not fun. You show up for a game and spend half an hour setting up your lovingly painted little dudes (all my armies are painted) and get wiped out on turn 2 before you even have a chance to really play.

GW games are designed as adversarial games, not co-op games. There are two sides and win conditions. So when I play them I expect to have a reasonable shot at winning. The set up and tear down time along with the monetary and time investment in your faction are enormous. So to me, it is really not worth it if I am gonna be handicapped from the start because I decided I really like Orks and I want to play a horde style army or whatever. I am not super pushed about losing a close game, or even getting stomped every now and then for making a dumb mistake, but getting absolutely gutted because my opponent rolled double turn or has the insane new hotness while my army has languished without update for maybe 10 years in the worst cases is just super off putting.

The answer from self professed casual gamers is that I should relax and enjoy the narrative of the battle. But having the same narrative every time (my Boyz get krumped) is tiresome and boring. I like narrative games, that is why I play Dungeons and Dragons every week. But I would like a wargame to actually be a wargame and to give players a fair shot without handicapping them for not knowing that the design paradigm has shifted or not doing online research about what faction not to pick based on what will not give them a fun time.

Casual players who have a strong identity often dismiss people like me as toxic competitive players. But I really feel that is unfair. I paint all my minis. I have started several gaming clubs and introduced dozens of people to wargaming. When I played in tournaments I often won best sportsman. I think I am generally a chill guy to play against. I pick my armies based on my love of the story or miniatures. I just want a well designed game that gives people like me a fair chance vs. other people when I am not making stupid mistakes.
This is also the reason I liked Warmachine and Hordes Mk1 and Mk2 where I could select forces based pretty much on what I liked the look of and once I learned not to make mistakes I could play and have a solid chance of winning in almost all match ups and why I do not like Mk3 where I have to play in a particular theme list which requires buying certain models which might not fit with what I want or look nice.

It is why I quit WFB (setting up an entire NG army fully painted to have it pretty much wiped on turn 1 by a sorc on a disk getting a purple sun off down my lines or whatever it was) and why I quite 40K (orks obviously being seen as a second tier punching bag faction for most of the lifespan of the game across multiple editions and more and more crazy poor balance).

So someone said competitive players drive off casual players. I think that is a false dichotomy. By putting up with terrible rules design and dismissing all critique as the whining of a toxic WAAC donkey cave you are losing a lot of people like me who just want a fair and serious (from a game design perspective) game. GW seem to be doing well so maybe people like me are the minority, but I think the growth in other games speaks to the fact that there are a lot of people in the same boat.

TBF i think casual players often don't really bother with dealing with the shoddy ruleset and introduce houserules, i've seen everything really from hadicaps points wise for weaker armies to whole mission sets written down.

In a way i think that the focus of GW atm torwards ITC ruleset is bad for the balance because ITC ruleset is differing vastly from the mainline 40 k ruleset which all base theirs on. That beeing said GW is SHODY to the extreme when rulewriting and it is no wonder that the ITC-system does a lot better then GW 40k itself.

Worst offender imo are missing Keywords, especially on squishy Charachters not getting charachter keywords. Or questionable formulation.

In a way there's also willing powercreep from GW's part with the newer models. Then there was WHFB and the completely broken Spell shenanigans.

Then there is the rather unfair ammount of update share: Basically the old DE codex, the Crons and the orks but also until recently chaos with that really bland codex, etc. Compared to Eldar or SM and some other darlings.

AND God beware, when you play an army that is produced by FW: Oh you payed2000£ for a Krieg/ R&H army ? Yeah your rules are 3 editions behind most of the time or just plain suck if written by GW mainline rulestudio, obviously an afterthought made by an intern in 1 H and no playtesting behind the rules itself.
You wanted to play Corsairs? Nope ilegal now in matched play.WHO CARES? (obviously not the dude with the amazing kitbahsed Corsair army, that dude can go feth himself out of principle....)
And let's not start talking about SoB......
GW also seems to forget these armies because they don't sell much and blame their inherent design choices and ignore them therefore not realising that an 4th /5 th edition Codex in 6-7 or even 8th is utter garbage and akin of a boxing match between a female lightwight against a heavy wight champion.

Now 8th also brought us down to no more USR, no NOW INSTEAD WE GET 5-6 slightly different but same Rules spread about what feels like 100+ units? That solved cluster and bloat alright!
Heck to play CSM now you need atleast Codex 2.0 vigilus, CA, FAQ's RB.
You own Codex 1 and don't want to upgrade for obvious reasons? Add that shadowspear list to that.
In a way it is obvious that the clusterfeth that are the rues are intended to sell you more gak then ever and it get's really annoying because half the time you feel like the playtesters seem to not have a single clue WTF they are doing. That is if Playtesters even exist for GW.

Even funnier it get's when we go now into the Subfaction shenanigans, of which often only certain combinations of Subfactions and according Stratagems and traits make units actually worth their salt. Your army ain't fitting that? Screw you then!
In essence GW knows that they have a spotty balance history and decided to go with the most balancing thought requiring system. Great.
Now youve got sitautions like these: 13 pts CSM/ SM RG or AL vs 13 pts UM/ WB. Guess which of these performs better. And that is just one internal balancing problem and i know that such a system rarely achieves equal long pikes for all subfactions BUT ATLEAST AN ATTEMPT could be made. Even funnier whn you compare mordian requirements and effect compared to Cadians, etc.

Now i prefer this system over the old one, but atleast try to give everyone a Spear and not a shortsword to some and others full armour Pike and longsword. so to speak.

 Da Boss wrote:

Spoiler:

I have a problem with the casual vs. competitive spat because I see it used all the time to justify poor rules design from Games Workshop. The attitude seems to be "it's just a beer and pretzels game, it doesn't need to be well designed!"

I really strongly disagree with that. I am not a GW gamer any more because I find their games so poorly designed at what they are trying to do (and to be honest the quality of the writing has gone down so much that any sense of narrative is utterly debased). I do not want to spend ages painting an army based on a faction I am enthusiastic for because of aesthetics and story (the things that hook most of us on a given faction) to find out I am relegated to a punching bag for another person who happened to like the aesthetic and story of a faction that for whatever reason the "design studio" (ie. a bunch of unprofessional hacks) decided would be vastly overpowered or designed for a totally different paradigm mid edition.

That is just not fun. You show up for a game and spend half an hour setting up your lovingly painted little dudes (all my armies are painted) and get wiped out on turn 2 before you even have a chance to really play.

GW games are designed as adversarial games, not co-op games. There are two sides and win conditions. So when I play them I expect to have a reasonable shot at winning. The set up and tear down time along with the monetary and time investment in your faction are enormous. So to me, it is really not worth it if I am gonna be handicapped from the start because I decided I really like Orks and I want to play a horde style army or whatever. I am not super pushed about losing a close game, or even getting stomped every now and then for making a dumb mistake, but getting absolutely gutted because my opponent rolled double turn or has the insane new hotness while my army has languished without update for maybe 10 years in the worst cases is just super off putting.

The answer from self professed casual gamers is that I should relax and enjoy the narrative of the battle. But having the same narrative every time (my Boyz get krumped) is tiresome and boring. I like narrative games, that is why I play Dungeons and Dragons every week. But I would like a wargame to actually be a wargame and to give players a fair shot without handicapping them for not knowing that the design paradigm has shifted or not doing online research about what faction not to pick based on what will not give them a fun time.

Casual players who have a strong identity often dismiss people like me as toxic competitive players. But I really feel that is unfair. I paint all my minis. I have started several gaming clubs and introduced dozens of people to wargaming. When I played in tournaments I often won best sportsman. I think I am generally a chill guy to play against. I pick my armies based on my love of the story or miniatures. I just want a well designed game that gives people like me a fair chance vs. other people when I am not making stupid mistakes.
This is also the reason I liked Warmachine and Hordes Mk1 and Mk2 where I could select forces based pretty much on what I liked the look of and once I learned not to make mistakes I could play and have a solid chance of winning in almost all match ups and why I do not like Mk3 where I have to play in a particular theme list which requires buying certain models which might not fit with what I want or look nice.

It is why I quit WFB (setting up an entire NG army fully painted to have it pretty much wiped on turn 1 by a sorc on a disk getting a purple sun off down my lines or whatever it was) and why I quite 40K (orks obviously being seen as a second tier punching bag faction for most of the lifespan of the game across multiple editions and more and more crazy poor balance).

So someone said competitive players drive off casual players. I think that is a false dichotomy. By putting up with terrible rules design and dismissing all critique as the whining of a toxic WAAC donkey cave you are losing a lot of people like me who just want a fair and serious (from a game design perspective) game. GW seem to be doing well so maybe people like me are the minority, but I think the growth in other games speaks to the fact that there are a lot of people in the same boat.

I, too, lose a lot of my games because I turn up with an army that I like rather than one that will stomp efficiently. But my experience has been more the other way round from yours - the more competitive players I know or have run into are always eager to give me advice on how to change my army lists. Mind you, they're friendly about it, they understand why I choose fluffy or pretty over efficient and they're never condescending, either. Nobody has ever told me to just chill because it's a beer and pretzels game. Rather, it's been more along the lines of "you're going to need to expect to lose if you bring unit A or don't use unit B".

Oh, I never blamed the other player for being too competitive if I lost, I think that is nonsense. They built the army they want, I built the army I want, we played, they had a good time, I did not.

I am also happy to take advice from such players and they often will give advice, the thing is, I am often not taking the advice because I want to fit a certain theme or accomplish a certain aesthetic with my force.

Other, more well designed games allow me to do this with minimal concessions for "power" because the games are balanced and most of the deciding between winner and loser happens at the "playing the game" phase rather than the "listbuilding phase".

The problem is not in any way the other players - I was a tournament player and when the game was better balanced (5th ed 40K, 6th and 7th (first half) Fantasy) I really enjoyed myself. I rarely ever had poor experiences with people playing in tournaments.

The problem is a rules system that is heavily luck based, that does not finish one design cycle completely before shifting design paradigm and that seems incapable of maintaining any semblance of balance between units, lists and factions.

People say it is designed for narrative play, and as a big fan of narrative gaming I really disagree. A well balanced system is not an impediment to narrative play because it is always easier to unbalance for narrative from a solid starting point. There is no downside to having a tightly designed game, and it is a bit of a disgrace that GW as one of the oldest and most established companies on the market has such low standards in this regard.It really seems to me to be a lack of discipline and focus from the design team that causes this, they seem like a thoroughly unprofessional bunch of people.

It is this problem with design that leads to ill feeling in the playerbase, and then we all blame each other for not compensating for the flaws built into the game by people charging us large sums of money for hard backed books full of rules.

It is designed for narrative play. So long as you are in a group that is also in for narrative play and aren't building tournament stomp liists, and as long as everyone is open to house ruling.

Otherwise yes, the game of 40k or AOS is a game decided in the listbuilding phase often, and thats by intent because thats what the community wants.

 auticus wrote:
It is designed for narrative play. So long as you are in a group that is also in for narrative play and aren't building tournament stomp liists, and as long as everyone is open to house ruling.

Otherwise yes, the game of 40k or AOS is a game decided in the listbuilding phase often, and thats by intent because thats what the community wants.

It isn't designed for narrative play over anything else.

I don't see how it particularly encourages narrative play. If you have to house rule it and rely on people behaving well then it was just poorly designed in any case.

I would really like them to do a better job with that because it would make it a lot easier for me to find people to play with in a game I found at least tolerable.

But I hate that the community gets blamed for GW not being bothered to write proper rules. That crap only flies when you are essentially a hobbyist making cheap rules pamphlets rather than a large corporation.

stratigo wrote:

 auticus wrote:
It is designed for narrative play. So long as you are in a group that is also in for narrative play and aren't building tournament stomp liists, and as long as everyone is open to house ruling.

Otherwise yes, the game of 40k or AOS is a game decided in the listbuilding phase often, and thats by intent because thats what the community wants.

It isn't designed for narrative play over anything else.

Thats good. I never stated it was designed for narrative play over anything else. I said that it was designed for narrative play so long as you're in the appropriate group that can do things in a non hyper competitive fashion.

It was also designed for open play and their version of "matched play".

If you have to house rule it and rely on people behaving well then it was just poorly designed in any case.

I don't disagree with you, it is poorly designed. The rules and "balance" are garbage, have been garbage for over two decades, and continues to sell millions of dollars of product because the commercial base of gamers are ok with that. That is a whole other topic unto itself though.

 auticus wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 auticus wrote:
It is designed for narrative play. So long as you are in a group that is also in for narrative play and aren't building tournament stomp liists, and as long as everyone is open to house ruling.

Otherwise yes, the game of 40k or AOS is a game decided in the listbuilding phase often, and thats by intent because thats what the community wants.

It isn't designed for narrative play over anything else.

Thats good. I never stated it was designed for narrative play over anything else. I said that it was designed for narrative play so long as you're in the appropriate group that can do things in a non hyper competitive fashion.

It was also designed for open play and their version of "matched play".

If you have to house rule it and rely on people behaving well then it was just poorly designed in any case.

I don't disagree with you, it is poorly designed. The rules and "balance" are garbage, have been garbage for over two decades, and continues to sell millions of dollars of product because the commercial base of gamers are ok with that. That is a whole other topic unto itself though.

If players were okay with terrible balance, what happened to 7th?

stratigo wrote:
If players were okay with terrible balance, what happened to 7th?

You know, this is actually a good point. I think the community fell hook, line, and sinker for "new" GW seeing how 8th is quickly becoming as bloated, if not more, as 7th ever was. Yet 7th GW stocks plummeted and they had to change while something happened during 8th that made everyone forgive and forget and now we see GW has learned that doing yet another half-assed job can result in them making more money than ever before, despite not actually fixing any of the flaws of the game.

I don't have an answer for why 7th was unacceptable garbage while 8th, despite showing all of the same flaws (some worse due to even worse soup and meta lists) being lauded and people seem to have no issue with it.

Wayniac wrote:

stratigo wrote:
If players were okay with terrible balance, what happened to 7th?

You know, this is actually a good point. I think the community fell hook, line, and sinker for "new" GW seeing how 8th is quickly becoming as bloated, if not more, as 7th ever was. Yet 7th GW stocks plummeted and they had to change while something happened during 8th that made everyone forgive and forget and now we see GW has learned that doing yet another half-assed job can result in them making more money than ever before, despite not actually fixing any of the flaws of the game.

I don't have an answer for why 7th was unacceptable garbage while 8th, despite showing all of the same flaws (some worse due to even worse soup and meta lists) being lauded and people seem to have no issue with it.

Cause the game is better for the vast majority of people and the rules are, objectively, tighter. It's still 40k, it is still i go you go, and there will never be a fix for that, but it is simply a better game. Like you go "Oh soup is worse!" But it isn't. You don't have invisible riptides getting to attack 2 to 3 times a turn after they deepstrike and nonsense like that. In your antipathy for 40k, you strive to make it far worse in your constructed reality than it is in objective reality. A thing doesn't have to be "THE WORSTEST EVAR!" to be bad, or have problems. Just like something doesn't have to be "FLAWLESS AND THE BEST!" to be fun and good. Indeed something can be both good and have problems all at once. But this binary of utter gak to utter gold plagues 40k. And not just in the rules, but in commentary of the setting and the issues of portrayals and how much should be lampshaded and how important is tradition.