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.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
GW have not made a game ‘for pickup games’. Matched play does not equal pickup games, and even if it did, ⅔ of the ways to play are specifically non-Matched. I think it’s pretry clear that GW primarily make a narrative war game centred around cool action and playing friends, but realise that some people like to play pickup games and tournaments and cater for them too.

Yeah, it's obvious that if one was going to design a game for more competitive play, it wouldn't have 40K's number of factions and subfactions and detachments and formations, all loaded onto a creaky and straining points system for balance. You'd keep it tighter and focused, and build more balance directly into the ruleset.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Stuff.

Yeah, that is all hilariously wrong. In addition to what other people have said:

1) Focusing on coop/solo at-home play is inherently kind of an underdog strategy. You trade the vastly superior customer engagement and networking of in-store pickup games for the ability to tell people "you can buy this and play even if nobody else in your area is buying in". If you have a successful game already then that advantage has minimal value to you. It's only useful if you're a tiny company trying to get any space at all in the market and you know that your first few customers will have to take a leap of faith by buying in before anyone else in there area is playing. So yeah, I'm not surprised that lots of new companies are doing it, but the dominant players in the market are still focusing heavily, if not exclusively, on pickup/tournament style gaming.

2) FFG is kind of a complicated situation because of license issues. Yeah, Armada is getting campaigns, but FFG is legally prohibited from releasing card-only expansions because that counts as a "card game" and someone else has that license. A campaign is an easy way to release pickup/tournament gaming cards without violating the license, and you'll notice that both of the campaign expansions have that content in addition to the campaign system itself. And you might notice that FFG has effectively killed off Imperial Assault, the game that is the closest fit for what you claim is the future of miniatures gaming, in favor of a 40k-style alternative in Legion. X-Wing just got a 2.0 reboot (a perfect opportunity to introduce the kind of things you believe are the future) that continued its focus on pickup/tournament style gaming while adding essentially nothing for solo/coop play. It's pretty clear based on FFG's business decisions that they do not agree with you about the future of the market.

Maybe. From a product design standpoint GW's mass of product is kind of a gold standard for how it's done. I couldn't tell you exactly how, but it seems like they're doing it right.

 gorgon wrote:

Yeah, it's obvious that if one was going to design a game for more competitive play, it wouldn't have 40K's number of factions and subfactions and detachments and formations, all loaded onto a creaky and straining points system for balance. You'd keep it tighter and focused, and build more balance directly into the ruleset.

A truly competitive game would require something like Magic's rotation, where specific models (probably older ones) are purposely excluded from tournament play in an effort to create a tightly controlled ruleset. As it is, 40k has 30 years of models available and accessible - probably close to 500 individual unit types across two dozen factions, and freeform tables with a dozen different terrain types, in a dozen different formats. Honestly, "good enough" balance for 40k is still an incredible achievement. But it's never, ever going to be the competitive game experience that people want to make it. Even Warmachine, the tournament game of choice in mk2, was buckling under the weight of its ever expanding options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

1) Focusing on coop/solo at-home play is inherently kind of an underdog strategy.

Currently. But the market is changing. I feel like miniature games are following the same basic trajectory that the board game industry did, just slower. Right now, we are kind of in the CCG boom - tournament and competitive play defines the market, but it is starting to change. Miniature gaming has been growing over the past few years, and what the market looks like now is completely different from even when AoS launched.

I think solo/coop play is a GREATLY underrepresented market in miniature gaming. In fact, outside of Fallout and Rangers of the Shadow Deep, I don't think there's any full on miniature games which hit that focus. And, watching the board game community, solo gaming has gone from a novelty (Race For the Galaxy had an AI player this one time) to something that is featured in nearly every game, and one of the first questions asked of any kickstarter. The "solitaire games on your table" geek list on BGG has gone from a dozen entries a month to 973 for June 2019.

People like to buy models, build and paint them, and they like playing with them - but they don't like packing 50 models and traveling an hour to the nearest game center for the chance of playing a game. Playing with children, wives, and girlfriends is a market that competitive miniature games does not target, nor solo game experiences. But that's going to be the biggest room for growth in this industry going forward.

And you might notice that FFG has effectively killed off Imperial Assault, the game that is the closest fit for what you claim is the future of miniatures gaming, in favor of a 40k-style alternative in Legion.

You forget that FFG has to share profits with Hasbro on Imperial Assault. They can't even sell Imperial Assault on their own website. They have the miniatures license for Star Wars and tried to pass Imperial Assault off as a miniatures game, but it didn't work. Even then, FFG is still releasing digital expansions for the game through the app - solo/cooperative expansions. In fact, the solo/coop app was so popular for Imperial Assault (and Descent) that they now have multiple games that use that format (Mansions of Madness and Journeys In Middle Earth). The just released Star Wars: Outer Rim also has a solo mode. In fact, I think FFG releases more soloable games than not these days - and I remember when it was a novelty with the Gears of War board game.

Edit: Imperial Assault is even getting a new mode with the new Skirmish map. Some sort of horde defense raid mode that incorporates the app. So Imperial Assault is still getting development, even if miniature design is focused on Legion right now.

X-Wing just got a 2.0 reboot (a perfect opportunity to introduce the kind of things you believe are the future) that continued its focus on pickup/tournament style gaming while adding essentially nothing for solo/coop play. It's pretty clear based on FFG's business decisions that they do not agree with you about the future of the market.

X-Wing 2.0 was contentious for many reasons and it was pretty obvious from the get go that deviating too far from the expected would've been disastrous. That's because competitive gamers hate change and their obsessive need to control the game prevents it from every expanding beyond their own selfish wishes. And it's obvious that X-Wing has lost a considerable amount of popularity through the edition change, to the point where now Legion is more popular. Competitive gamers keep games from growing, then abandon them at the earliest sign of fault, making for a notoriously fickle audience that will kill your game overnight (Warmachine mk3?)

 Sqorgar wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Yeah, it's obvious that if one was going to design a game for more competitive play, it wouldn't have 40K's number of factions and subfactions and detachments and formations, all loaded onto a creaky and straining points system for balance. You'd keep it tighter and focused, and build more balance directly into the ruleset.

A truly competitive game would require something like Magic's rotation, where specific models (probably older ones) are purposely excluded from tournament play in an effort to create a tightly controlled ruleset. As it is, 40k has 30 years of models available and accessible - probably close to 500 individual unit types across two dozen factions, and freeform tables with a dozen different terrain types, in a dozen different formats. Honestly, "good enough" balance for 40k is still an incredible achievement. But it's never, ever going to be the competitive game experience that people want to make it. Even Warmachine, the tournament game of choice in mk2, was buckling under the weight of its ever expanding options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

1) Focusing on coop/solo at-home play is inherently kind of an underdog strategy.

Currently. But the market is changing. I feel like miniature games are following the same basic trajectory that the board game industry did, just slower. Right now, we are kind of in the CCG boom - tournament and competitive play defines the market, but it is starting to change. Miniature gaming has been growing over the past few years, and what the market looks like now is completely different from even when AoS launched.

I think solo/coop play is a GREATLY underrepresented market in miniature gaming. In fact, outside of Fallout and Rangers of the Shadow Deep, I don't think there's any full on miniature games which hit that focus. And, watching the board game community, solo gaming has gone from a novelty (Race For the Galaxy had an AI player this one time) to something that is featured in nearly every game, and one of the first questions asked of any kickstarter. The "solitaire games on your table" geek list on BGG has gone from a dozen entries a month to 973 for June 2019.

People like to buy models, build and paint them, and they like playing with them - but they don't like packing 50 models and traveling an hour to the nearest game center for the chance of playing a game. Playing with children, wives, and girlfriends is a market that competitive miniature games does not target, nor solo game experiences. But that's going to be the biggest room for growth in this industry going forward.

And you might notice that FFG has effectively killed off Imperial Assault, the game that is the closest fit for what you claim is the future of miniatures gaming, in favor of a 40k-style alternative in Legion.

You forget that FFG has to share profits with Hasbro on Imperial Assault. They can't even sell Imperial Assault on their own website. They have the miniatures license for Star Wars and tried to pass Imperial Assault off as a miniatures game, but it didn't work. Even then, FFG is still releasing digital expansions for the game through the app - solo/cooperative expansions. In fact, the solo/coop app was so popular for Imperial Assault (and Descent) that they now have multiple games that use that format (Mansions of Madness and Journeys In Middle Earth). The just released Star Wars: Outer Rim also has a solo mode. In fact, I think FFG releases more soloable games than not these days - and I remember when it was a novelty with the Gears of War board game.

Edit: Imperial Assault is even getting a new mode with the new Skirmish map. Some sort of horde defense raid mode that incorporates the app. So Imperial Assault is still getting development, even if miniature design is focused on Legion right now.

X-Wing just got a 2.0 reboot (a perfect opportunity to introduce the kind of things you believe are the future) that continued its focus on pickup/tournament style gaming while adding essentially nothing for solo/coop play. It's pretty clear based on FFG's business decisions that they do not agree with you about the future of the market.

X-Wing 2.0 was contentious for many reasons and it was pretty obvious from the get go that deviating too far from the expected would've been disastrous. That's because competitive gamers hate change and their obsessive need to control the game prevents it from every expanding beyond their own selfish wishes. And it's obvious that X-Wing has lost a considerable amount of popularity through the edition change, to the point where now Legion is more popular. Competitive gamers keep games from growing, then abandon them at the earliest sign of fault, making for a notoriously fickle audience that will kill your game overnight (Warmachine mk3?)

Oh Oracle, regale us with your knowledge of the future!

stratigo wrote:
Oh Oracle, regale us with your knowledge of the future!

Sell your Google stock, invest in solar panels, and learn Chinese. Also, war never changes.

Of course War changes, at the moment its a soul-less sandbox with surprise purchase opportunitys

 Sqorgar wrote:
Currently. But the market is changing.

{citation needed}

The companies that make up the market are not changing, and it doesn't matter what some niche-market company is doing with their 0.1% market share. It doesn't matter if there are 973 games on BGG if the total sales revenue of those games is $10. What the market is currently doing is continuing to put pickup/tournament style gaming somewhere between "the only thing that matters" and "very important", and treating solo/coop "kitchen table" play as a minor side thing at best.

I think solo/coop play is a GREATLY underrepresented market in miniature gaming. In fact, outside of Fallout and Rangers of the Shadow Deep, I don't think there's any full on miniature games which hit that focus.

And this is your concession that everything you have said is wrong. How exactly can this be the future of miniatures gaming if you can't think of more than two niche-market games that fit your vision of the future? It sounds like, contrary to your original claims, the industry is pretty thoroughly ignoring your "future of the industry".

 Peregrine wrote:
And this is your concession that everything you have said is wrong. How exactly can this be the future of miniatures gaming if you can't think of more than two niche-market games that fit your vision of the future? It sounds like, contrary to your original claims, the industry is pretty thoroughly ignoring your "future of the industry".

Look at co-op board games compared to miniatures war games. One of these two is doing stunningly well in recent years for more than a handful of major players. It does something amazing, it turns that rules abusing jackass no one wants to play against, into the useful aspect of the team.

That absolutely could be something in mini war gaming, but there is the slight problem of needing the added minis for non-player models, but there's also significantly less need for player models to balance that out a bit. There's a reason that places like miniwargaming are trying some experimental stuff with this at the moment, people are revisiting things more in the spirit of rogue trader than competitive 40k and finding something they like. Like a lot of the old necromunda scenarios in which there was a primary goal above and beyond shooting each other that you could compete for, or even better, a reason not to shoot each other until the reason was dealt with. It's hardly new. Co-op games can be a great deal of fun and as I've said before, just playing the game is supposed to be fun, not just winning it.

You, you have a rather extreme focus on your competitive community, so you see a lot of value there. Often to the point you feel the need to deride people who don't see that same value you do. Well, the value people see here is well outside of what you care about, but that does not mean there's nothing there.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Currently. But the market is changing.

{citation needed}

Because the board game market already HAS changed. There is increasingly little difference between the miniature and board game market - to the point where board game manufacturers have full on miniature games now.

The companies that make up the market are not changing, and it doesn't matter what some niche-market company is doing with their 0.1% market share.

How can you say that when GW is completely different to what it was three or four years ago? Warmachine is in deep trouble. X-Wing is no longer the top miniature game. Miniature companies are trying to break into board games (Aristeia, Warhammer Quest, Defiance, Underworlds) while board game companies are trying to break into miniature games (FFG, CMON). Kickstarter has completely changed how games are funded and made. How in the hell can you say that the market isn't changing?

It doesn't matter if there are 973 games on BGG if the total sales revenue of those games is $10.

Oh, they are doing fine. Middara (1-4 player cooperative game) has a kickstarter going right now that has made over $2 million (and still has 18 days to go). Gloomhaven's second printing kickstarter made almost $4 million. Kingdom Death Monster, $12 million. Zombicides routinely make around $4 million. Dark Souls $4 million. Assassin's Creed over a million. Bloodborne $4 million. All solo/coop games.

How exactly can this be the future of miniatures gaming if you can't think of more than two niche-market games that fit your vision of the future?

Because Rangers of the Shadow Deep and Fallout Wasteland Warfare are NEW. It's easy to see the direction the industry is going if you look at the recent successes. Both these games are less than a year old and wildly successful beyond their initial goals. In fact, Rangers of the Shadow Deep was one popular board game reviewer's #2 game of all time. And Fallout was successful enough that they aren't just expanding the line, but creating a Skyrim spin off. Meanwhile, The Other Side - a major effort by the Malifaux guys - made as much impact as a fart in the wind and appears to be dead already. CMON's Song of Ice and Fire seems to be doing okay, but it is majorly propped up by the tv show finale hype and it'll be little more than a rumored part of history in a year.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Stuff.

GW's annual revenue: $275 million.

Total sales of all of those games you mention, combined: $31 million.

Your "new direction of the market" is making 10% of the annual revenue of the dominant company in the market, and that's assuming all of those kickstarters were in the same year and so can be combined like that. Good for them for identifying a niche market and making some money from it, but they're still dwarfed by the sales of the tournament/pickup-focused market leader. And that market leader is not in any way backing off from their focus.

 Peregrine wrote:

GW's annual revenue: $275 million.

Total sales of all of those games you mention, combined: $31 million.

GW isn't making all that money on models. They sell books and license out their IPs for video games and yoga pants. And a large portion of what GW sells is not explicitly competitive focused, like paints and terrain. If you look at GW's products that are explicitly competitive... there's only a handful, like the KT Arena expansion. Most releases include that Three Ways to Play thing, so are of value to non-competitive players as well - certainly to the point where it is impossible to say that competitive or non-competitive players are the primary purchasers of any one product.

And by the way, Asmodee North America's annual revenue is $500 million (and it is all kitchen tabletop gaming), so shut up.

 Peregrine wrote:
Good for them for identifying a niche market and making some money from it, but they're still dwarfed by the sales of the tournament/pickup-focused market leader. And that market leader is not in any way backing off from their focus.

Tournament/pickup focused?

In what way are GW ‘focused’ on tournaments and pickup games, any more than they are on kids in their bedrooms or narrative gaming?

GW has always treated tournaments as an optional subset of the community, which is what they are. It’s only recently they’ve been throwing them a bone and utilising them occasionally rather than ignoring them completely. The majority of their output is not tournament-focused. And making a points system for matched play doesn’t in any way mean they’re specifically supporting pickup gaming.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Warmachine is in deep trouble.

Im sorry that is simply untrue. It has gone through some testing times after the release of Mk3 but much of that has been fixed. PP as a company has also done well with MonPoc and they have announced another full wargame is coming net year. Hardly the moves of a company that is in toruble.

Sunno wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Warmachine is in deep trouble.

Im sorry that is simply untrue. It has gone through some testing times after the release of Mk3 but much of that has been fixed. PP as a company has also done well with MonPoc and they have announced another full wargame is coming net year. Hardly the moves of a company that is in toruble.

I said Warmachine was in trouble, not PP. They've lost a lot of players and have dropped from the second biggest game to not even on the chart, and a lot of FLGS have stopped carrying the line. The tournament mindset is what essentially destroyed that game, inside and out, and one of the major reasons why I rail against this mindset.

I'm a huge MonPoc fan, and I'm thrilled that the line is doing well (the stuff they showed at L&L was great). I'm even looking forward to their new Warcasters game, and I may even try out Riot Quest - but Warmachine is basically dead to me (and a lot of other people).

Sunno wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Warmachine is in deep trouble.

Im sorry that is simply untrue. It has gone through some testing times after the release of Mk3 but much of that has been fixed. PP as a company has also done well with MonPoc and they have announced another full wargame is coming net year. Hardly the moves of a company that is in toruble.

just ignore the demons behind the curtain, no End Times here...

Sunno wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Warmachine is in deep trouble.

Im sorry that is simply untrue. It has gone through some testing times after the release of Mk3 but much of that has been fixed. PP as a company has also done well with MonPoc and they have announced another full wargame is coming net year. Hardly the moves of a company that is in toruble.

There's evidence that warmachine is doing poorly, at the very least it has dried up in a lot of areas based on fb posts. Also not a good sign that the value of the miniatures has plummeted and don't forget about the mystery boxes. It's odd because it's such a better tournament game than 40k. Anyone with delusions about 40ks "strategy" would get a lot more out of wm.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The tournament mindset is what essentially destroyed that game, inside and out, and one of the major reasons why I rail against this mindset.

That's hilarious because WM/H was, from day one, intended to be a tournament game and marketed heavily to that audience. Did you also complain about how the "tournament mindset" is destroying the game while WM/H was growing and thriving, or did you save that complaint hoping that it would eventually (as most games do) decline and suddenly you could use it as an example in your anti-tournament crusade?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
In what way are GW ‘focused’ on tournaments and pickup games, any more than they are on kids in their bedrooms or narrative gaming?

Their games are all designed to support games against random strangers with minimal preparation beyond choosing a point level and mission type. Army construction is exclusively with a generic point system where each player is free to independently choose their force up to an equal point limit, missions are designed to work with any pairing of armies, the basic structure of the game involves each player taking sole responsibility for their rules/models/etc and does not involve a third-party DM or game host or whatever providing a set to play with, etc. GW may accept that they will sell to people with other approaches to the game, but all of their major products are designed to support tournament/pickup style gaming. And none of their core products involve Sqorgar's vision of the "future" of the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
GW isn't making all that money on models.

Uh, sure, GW's various license deals are totally more important than the models and would exist if GW stopped selling the miniatures games...

Most releases include that Three Ways to Play thing, so are of value to non-competitive players as well - certainly to the point where it is impossible to say that competitive or non-competitive players are the primary purchasers of any one product.

A token mention of a "third way to play" that consists of what, a single paragraph of content, is not genuinely targeting a market. The full extent of GW's marketing to that group is to acknowledge that they're allowed to play the game, their real efforts are focused almost exclusively on pickup/tournament style gaming. And why wouldn't they? That's where the money is, a person who plays pickup games in a game store is a far more valuable customer than one who plays a kitchen table campaign with one friend.

And by the way, Asmodee North America's annual revenue is $500 million (and it is all kitchen tabletop gaming), so shut up.

Talking about FFG's parent company, which mostly exists in the board game industry, as if it is relevant to miniatures games is rather dishonest.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
In what way are GW ‘focused’ on tournaments and pickup games, any more than they are on kids in their bedrooms or narrative gaming?

Their games are all designed to support games against random strangers with minimal preparation beyond choosing a point level and mission type. Army construction is exclusively with a generic point system where each player is free to independently choose their force up to an equal point limit, missions are designed to work with any pairing of armies, the basic structure of the game involves each player taking sole responsibility for their rules/models/etc and does not involve a third-party DM or game host or whatever providing a set to play with, etc. GW may accept that they will sell to people with other approaches to the game, but all of their major products are designed to support tournament/pickup style gaming.

Um... pretty much all of those things have been part of the game since before American pickup game culture OR wargame tournaments existed. They’re also all elements that are really good ideas in a game that involves a huge range of models, which either player can pick and choose from and frequently add to (which is their core business model). They’re not designed for tournaments any more than they’re designed to fit their business model of selling individual units of toy soldiers. After all, the majority of their customers don’t play tournaments.

GW may accept that they also sell to people with other approaches to the game, but all their major products are designed so that frequent, repeat customers can add new models to armies at will. Everything you suggested supports that model.


.

Part of the problem is that "competitive" 40k is basically all listbuilding, with little or no actual strategy despite the competitive 40k people lauding the game for its "tactical depth". Most of that depth is what unit to pick and what to attack, very little in the way of real strategy yet somehow people seem to claim it has so much skill involved.

I have now read a lot of things trying to make 40k into an e-sport with paid sponsorships and the ability to get a living wage by playing it. This mindset is so far away from what wargaming is meant to be that it's like trying to prove the world is flat against all proof otherwise.

The funny think is that competitive 40k insists on a single format, with only a few quirks like Highlander (one of each). It would be neat to see a fixed format, for example, like the organisers hand out a standardised competitive list and players bring models for the list for that army.

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the problem is that "competitive" 40k is basically all listbuilding, with little or no actual strategy despite the competitive 40k people lauding the game for its "tactical depth". Most of that depth is what unit to pick and what to attack, very little in the way of real strategy yet somehow people seem to claim it has so much skill involved.

I have now read a lot of things trying to make 40k into an e-sport with paid sponsorships and the ability to get a living wage by playing it. This mindset is so far away from what wargaming is meant to be that it's like trying to prove the world is flat against all proof otherwise.

Try playing something other then ITC missions,
The latest CA for example.
heck, go wild. Play Maelstrom.

 Ordana wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the problem is that "competitive" 40k is basically all listbuilding, with little or no actual strategy despite the competitive 40k people lauding the game for its "tactical depth". Most of that depth is what unit to pick and what to attack, very little in the way of real strategy yet somehow people seem to claim it has so much skill involved.

I have now read a lot of things trying to make 40k into an e-sport with paid sponsorships and the ability to get a living wage by playing it. This mindset is so far away from what wargaming is meant to be that it's like trying to prove the world is flat against all proof otherwise.

Try playing something other then ITC missions,
The latest CA for example.
heck, go wild. Play Maelstrom.

Something something only ITC is balanced for competitive play.

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the problem is that "competitive" 40k is basically all listbuilding, with little or no actual strategy despite the competitive 40k people lauding the game for its "tactical depth". Most of that depth is what unit to pick and what to attack, very little in the way of real strategy yet somehow people seem to claim it has so much skill involved.

I have now read a lot of things trying to make 40k into an e-sport with paid sponsorships and the ability to get a living wage by playing it. This mindset is so far away from what wargaming is meant to be that it's like trying to prove the world is flat against all proof otherwise.

Do you play competitive? How often? It sounds like you don't. There is a lot of decision making that goes into winning an ITC mission. I am at a GT right now, just finished day 1 and got back to my hotel room. Game 1 I lost, 22-23. My opponent made an inordinate amount of saves that really helped him win the game, but I am the one who lost it, choosing to try to use my smash captain to kill some Kataphrons, banking on them failing enough 5++ saves to die. I only killed 6 after spending all my CP to do it, partially because of bad rolls, but partially because I took a huge risk and should have focused fire elsewhere and using the copious amounts of terrain to block LOS to my Knights. It was a close game, with minor tactical mistakes like that costing me the game.

Game 2, I also lost, 26-30... I saw a chance to charge and kill some Tankbustas with my Knights so I took it... and it left me open to a counter charge from the Orks next turn and I lost a Knight. I should have done the smart thing, which would have been to charge the Tankbustas with my Infantry, to tie them up for another turn, while I focus on the 90 other Ork boys bearing down on me. Another tactical error, cost me the game.

Game 3, vs Custodes jetbike spam. I won, because my opponent rushed in and tried to just yolo into my Knights with 15 jetbikes. He killed pask, 2 Knights, and a smash captain, but Custodes are an army that requires finesse... running headlong into a meatgrider with Knights isn't a winning tactic with them...

Then there are tactics based on what secondaries you pick, what secondaries your opponent picks, what the terrain is, what the deployment is, etc. I find ITC matches to be extremely tactically demanding. Yes, listbuilding is important. But it's only part of the game.

 Horst wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the problem is that "competitive" 40k is basically all listbuilding, with little or no actual strategy despite the competitive 40k people lauding the game for its "tactical depth". Most of that depth is what unit to pick and what to attack, very little in the way of real strategy yet somehow people seem to claim it has so much skill involved.

I have now read a lot of things trying to make 40k into an e-sport with paid sponsorships and the ability to get a living wage by playing it. This mindset is so far away from what wargaming is meant to be that it's like trying to prove the world is flat against all proof otherwise.

Do you play competitive? How often? It sounds like you don't. There is a lot of decision making that goes into winning an ITC mission. I am at a GT right now, just finished day 1 and got back to my hotel room. Game 1 I lost, 22-23. My opponent made an inordinate amount of saves that really helped him win the game, but I am the one who lost it, choosing to try to use my smash captain to kill some Kataphrons, banking on them failing enough 5++ saves to die. I only killed 6 after spending all my CP to do it, partially because of bad rolls, but partially because I took a huge risk and should have focused fire elsewhere and using the copious amounts of terrain to block LOS to my Knights. It was a close game, with minor tactical mistakes like that costing me the game.

Game 2, I also lost, 26-30... I saw a chance to charge and kill some Tankbustas with my Knights so I took it... and it left me open to a counter charge from the Orks next turn and I lost a Knight. I should have done the smart thing, which would have been to charge the Tankbustas with my Infantry, to tie them up for another turn, while I focus on the 90 other Ork boys bearing down on me. Another tactical error, cost me the game.

Game 3, vs Custodes jetbike spam. I won, because my opponent rushed in and tried to just yolo into my Knights with 15 jetbikes. He killed pask, 2 Knights, and a smash captain, but Custodes are an army that requires finesse... running headlong into a meatgrider with Knights isn't a winning tactic with them...

Then there are tactics based on what secondaries you pick, what secondaries your opponent picks, what the terrain is, what the deployment is, etc. I find ITC matches to be extremely tactically demanding. Yes, listbuilding is important. But it's only part of the game.

The three examples you gave are all picking what to attack and which target to attack it with, which is what he said...

It involves positioning models to attack things. I lost my smash captain and blew way too much CP on him in game one. In game 2, I was baited into getting my Knights too close to an ork charge. In game 3, my opponent moved all his custodes into the open where all my Knights could see them to try to one shot my army in a single turn before I could kill him.

Yes, my 3 examples involved just picking where to move models and what to shoot... but that's literally the entire game. You can't just easily dismiss "just move and shoot things right" as non tactical choices.

Its tactical. But games of checkers can also be tactical.

If you want a deeper game, 40k is not it. Nor is competitive 40k. Indeed competitive or plain 40k is primarily about listbuilding and then target priority. Maneuvering into position can pedantically be called into play but in a game where things can move as fast as they can move, and can move in whatever direction they want with no facing concerns, movement in 40k is very shallow as far as tactical depth is concerned, which is compounded by there being almost no terrain rules that are meaningful.

And thats ok. It caters to what it caters to.

The problem comes when your entire community will only play 40k because everyone else plays 40k. Then you get the annoyance and negative commentary.

But thats for another thread.

To touch back on the original question, I can see some competitive players being salty and angry towards casual or non tournament players for insisting that the game is nothing but an exercise in listbuilding, and that tactical choices in the game are not very important next to just bringing a strong list. Unless you regularly attend ITC events and generally do quite well, I don't particularly value your opinion on the complexity of competitive 40k. I find it to be complicated. Maybe I'm just dumb.

I spent 10 years playing GT level 40k and whfb. I traveled the country going to the various GTs and was highly competitive at both games.

Its still the least complicated tabletop game I have ever played and the keys to winning were being good at min/maxing your spreadsheet coefficients to get the most mathematical juice out of each point, and target priority. If you could do both of those things, you were pretty golden.

Guess I'm just dumb then because I find it complicated and difficult, and cannot win every game.