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.
2019/07/09 00:23:36
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: My opinion about listbuilding comes from having been a powergamer running the abusive lists for about 10 years. I thought I was hot ****.
Spoiler:
So did all of my tournament mates that ran with me. We destroyed our casual community. We were likely "TFG".
I regularly placed in GTs in the top 20 and in whfb made it to a top 5 placing and a top 8 placing and have a trophy room with a dozen RTT eagles.
Take away my power lists though and my win/loss ratio drops to about 50/50.
My "awakening" came when a really good player beat my powerlist with an average list, not once... but twice in a row. I started questioning my own ability and then started taking weaker lists to improve my play.
That was when I discovered just how much of a crutch my list was.
And every-single-player that played with me, traveled across NA to GTs, had an identical experience. Take their powerlist away and they were by far not destroying people any longer. They'd win as much as they lost.
I have in 20 odd years run into about four or five individuals that were truly just great no matter what list they took. But those guys are very very rare. The majority of all powergamers, including myself, were reduced to shells of ourselves when not flaunting our mathhammer monstrosities.
Because math is a powerful force in this dice game and when you aren't stacking the odds in your favor, you find that you will succumb most of the time like even the filthy casuals because they are running the same tier of lists as you.
I have also noted over the past decade that the guys that do well with their math hammer monster lists in 40k and whfb/aos are only average at best at games that require table skill and don't lean on listbuilding as heavily.
This is why my opinion is colored the way it is.
Well put!
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
slave.entity wrote: I remember at my last job a few years back the game director and I were trying to get a few of the designers into 40k since and he and I were long time fans who decided to come back after hearing about 8th edition shaking things up. Everyone picked their factions and put their armies together and even got most of them fully painted before we sat down and scheduled a few intro games after work. After one or two games, both new players (both professional game designers) immediately grasped that:
1. A game of 40k is largely decided in the list-building phase
2. The optimal configuration for a given faction will always be drawn from an highly limited pool of units
3. The optimal game plan for a given list will nearly always be identical every time you play
I think they needed to play far more than a few games to better assess. New players are almost always going to get beaten, mostly because lack of skill and experience, like in anything else. Veteran players win, because of experience. And those with equal playing experience win on skill.
Also, my tourney experience disagrees with these conclusions.
#1? Largely? I would say from experience that it ought to be said in the same breath (or typed in the same paragraph) that 'list building' is a good chunk of winning, with some dice luck, but by far the larger portion of winning comes from player skill. Give me a top rated list, lemme get in 12 or so good practice games. Then give a top level GT player the same list, brand new to him, and I am going to lose because the player with the better skills will make better target priority decisions, keep objectives in focus, and simply win the game on skill. Give us both poor, awful lists, and we'll likely get the same results; I will lose.
As equals?
45% list building?
45% skill?
10% match up, terrain & dice luck?
46, 46, 8%?
49, 49 2%?
I think more like:
51 to 65% skill
48 to 34% list
the rest to match up, terrain & dice.
Approximately.
Yes, there is a sizable degree of list building involved in winning. If one shows up with only 2k worth a regular tactical squads (3e thru 5e, PFist Sgt, meltagun or plasmagun, ML/LasCan), and minimum HQs for the battalions, then yes, you're likely to lose against most other lists that show up at tourneys, unless the opponent is far more a chump than you.
I just find that too often in discussion here on dakka, that list building and GW's codex writing, are the scapegoats of players who don't do well at tourneys, or are unhappy with the game, and like to gripe and complain.
The data available from ITC shows that there are many more variations on lists that win, than in previous editions. That's a point that one might argue against, by saying, 'it is disingenuous because there are *more* codices and builds than ever', but I would re-counter "that as 8e gets older, we continue to see new, untried combos that do well" (not just evolution because of bi-annual FAQ/nerfs).
For example, Don Hooson (ITC, Calif) does well with unconventional lists: 3rd place this last BAO with Lords Discordant and Hell Turkeys, 1st place last year with a 'different' Plague Marine build that elicited much commentary on how unusual/not-previously-experienced it was).
For the many on this thread that are in the "list building is the main reason you win or lose" group, are you using BCP, BestCoastPairings? Are you looking at lists that place at top tables? I invite you to check those top table lists and those on down to the kiddie pool. See how many of Brandon Grant's long standing A.M., 6 to 9 BullGryn+Castellan+60 footer (does it have a name?) list there are at the big GTs that finish less than 50% W/L. See how well the dual Callidus/Forgeworld Custodes lists:
... actually do when in the hands of mediocre players who are not in the top 100 ITC scoring ranks.
40k doesn't have that many layers of gameplay/decision making. Again compared to warmachine which has list chicken, 3 separate win conditions, resource management in the form of focus/souls/corpses/etc, feats, themes, much shorter ranges that make positioning important, multiple formats, and for better or worse way more rules and abilities across models that interact and combo in an almost mtg like fashion. The game can be won or lost instantly from a lot of these and I'm certainly missing some. 40k is fun, I think it has the best setting and miniatures but I'd like to hear how anybody who has played in tournaments for both of these systems can think 40k isn't shallow by comparison.
2019/07/09 00:40:48
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: My opinion about listbuilding comes from having been a powergamer running the abusive lists for about 10 years. I thought I was hot ****.
So did all of my tournament mates that ran with me. We destroyed our casual community. We were likely "TFG".
I regularly placed in GTs in the top 20 and in whfb made it to a top 5 placing and a top 8 placing and have a trophy room with a dozen RTT eagles.
Take away my power lists though and my win/loss ratio drops to about 50/50.
My "awakening" came when a really good player beat my powerlist with an average list, not once... but twice in a row. I started questioning my own ability and then started taking weaker lists to improve my play.
That was when I discovered just how much of a crutch my list was.
And every-single-player that played with me, traveled across NA to GTs, had an identical experience. Take their powerlist away and they were by far not destroying people any longer. They'd win as much as they lost.
I have in 20 odd years run into about four or five individuals that were truly just great no matter what list they took. But those guys are very very rare. The majority of all powergamers, including myself, were reduced to shells of ourselves when not flaunting our mathhammer monstrosities.
Because math is a powerful force in this dice game and when you aren't stacking the odds in your favor, you find that you will succumb most of the time like even the filthy casuals because they are running the same tier of lists as you.
I have also noted over the past decade that the guys that do well with their math hammer monster lists in 40k and whfb/aos are only average at best at games that require table skill and don't lean on listbuilding as heavily.
This is why my opinion is colored the way it is.
OK... but by your own admission in this post then, a truly skilled player can beat a player with a monster meta list. Why not simply try to figure out why you lost, and modify how you play? If you can be beaten by someone who isn't powergaming with a meta list, then isn't he just better at the game than you, and it proves there is a component to this game beyond listbuilding? Yes, build a good list is a part of it. Two players of equal (or even nearly equal) skill will often have their match decided if one has a much better list than the other, but skill is definitely a factor.
2019/07/09 01:33:32
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Skill is generally speaking ONLY a real factor when the lists are of similar tiers/quality or a player is horrible with a strong list taking on a great player with a really bad list.,
A good player with a monster list will destroy a good player with a weaker tiered list pretty much every time. Skill hardly plays a role in that setup.
A bad player with a monster list will often beat an ok player with a weaker tiered list.
A bad player with a monster list is a good game against a good player with a weak list, though the good player has to rely on skill at that point.
There are VERY FEW truly skilled players good enough to take a weak list and roll players with great lists. Very few. I've seen great players try by taking a weak list and get beaten by ok to bad players because of list disparity and then they just go back to the crutch power list.
This is only as bad in 40k (and AOS). In other games, I hardly see this phenomenon.
By my own admission I am an ok player. This ok player was a GT placing player though with a monster list. Which is why when I see guys puff their chests out and people laud them for being warhammer napoleons, I don't really put stock into it unless they are doing so with a weaker list, because I know by my own experience that I myself was just an ok player but I was placing high every time because list.
then isn't he just better at the game than you, and it proves there is a component to this game beyond listbuilding?
I will also say that this was happening in WHFB 7th edition, where table skill was still a thing. He was better than me. But as the game has moved to simply target priority and listbuilding, I have already beaten that player with a more powerful list in modern 40k AND AOS (and he has quit GW games for that reason, and we have good games in other systems where table skill means something).
He beats me a fair bit in those games because he is often a superior player, but in modern 40k and AOS he knows I will stomp him if I take my ball crusher list and he doesn't want to spend money to chase the meta to get his own ball crusher list that will be valid for a year before GW makes you cycle a new army.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/09 01:35:05
2019/07/09 02:01:32
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
slave.entity wrote: I remember at my last job a few years back the game director and I were trying to get a few of the designers into 40k since and he and I were long time fans who decided to come back after hearing about 8th edition shaking things up. Everyone picked their factions and put their armies together and even got most of them fully painted before we sat down and scheduled a few intro games after work. After one or two games, both new players (both professional game designers) immediately grasped that:
1. A game of 40k is largely decided in the list-building phase
2. The optimal configuration for a given faction will always be drawn from an highly limited pool of units
3. The optimal game plan for a given list will nearly always be identical every time you play
I think they needed to play far more than a few games to better assess. New players are almost always going to get beaten, mostly because lack of skill and experience, like in anything else. Veteran players win, because of experience. And those with equal playing experience win on skill.
Also, my tourney experience disagrees with these conclusions.
#1? Largely? I would say from experience that it ought to be said in the same breath (or typed in the same paragraph) that 'list building' is a good chunk of winning, with some dice luck, but by far the larger portion of winning comes from player skill. Give me a top rated list, lemme get in 12 or so good practice games. Then give a top level GT player the same list, brand new to him, and I am going to lose because the player with the better skills will make better target priority decisions, keep objectives in focus, and simply win the game on skill. Give us both poor, awful lists, and we'll likely get the same results; I will lose.
As equals?
45% list building?
45% skill?
10% match up, terrain & dice luck?
46, 46, 8%?
49, 49 2%?
I think more like:
51 to 65% skill
48 to 34% list
the rest to match up, terrain & dice.
Approximately.
Yes, there is a sizable degree of list building involved in winning. If one shows up with only 2k worth a regular tactical squads (3e thru 5e, PFist Sgt, meltagun or plasmagun, ML/LasCan), and minimum HQs for the battalions, then yes, you're likely to lose against most other lists that show up at tourneys, unless the opponent is far more a chump than you.
I just find that too often in discussion here on dakka, that list building and GW's codex writing, are the scapegoats of players who don't do well at tourneys, or are unhappy with the game, and like to gripe and complain.
The data available from ITC shows that there are many more variations on lists that win, than in previous editions. That's a point that one might argue against, by saying, 'it is disingenuous because there are *more* codices and builds than ever', but I would re-counter "that as 8e gets older, we continue to see new, untried combos that do well" (not just evolution because of bi-annual FAQ/nerfs).
For example, Don Hooson (ITC, Calif) does well with unconventional lists: 3rd place this last BAO with Lords Discordant and Hell Turkeys, 1st place last year with a 'different' Plague Marine build that elicited much commentary on how unusual/not-previously-experienced it was).
For the many on this thread that are in the "list building is the main reason you win or lose" group, are you using BCP, BestCoastPairings? Are you looking at lists that place at top tables? I invite you to check those top table lists and those on down to the kiddie pool. See how many of Brandon Grant's long standing A.M., 6 to 9 BullGryn+Castellan+60 footer (does it have a name?) list there are at the big GTs that finish less than 50% W/L. See how well the dual Callidus/Forgeworld Custodes lists:
... actually do when in the hands of mediocre players who are not in the top 100 ITC scoring ranks.
40k doesn't have that many layers of gameplay/decision making. Again compared to warmachine which has list chicken, 3 separate win conditions, resource management in the form of focus/souls/corpses/etc, feats, themes, much shorter ranges that make positioning important, multiple formats, and for better or worse way more rules and abilities across models that interact and combo in an almost mtg like fashion. The game can be won or lost instantly from a lot of these and I'm certainly missing some. 40k is fun, I think it has the best setting and miniatures but I'd like to hear how anybody who has played in tournaments for both of these systems can think 40k isn't shallow by comparison.
Any time I check in on warmahordes, I see most of the games end via some crazy end run assassination strike by stacking spells and powers on a guy to murder the general
2019/07/09 04:27:23
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
It's down to balance and player types.
People play games for different reasons (a combination of them really, but one is usually ahead of the others). Some people are really into building and painting, they might as well play with the things. Some people just want to put their cool models down and have some fun. Others want to figure it out, they play to win, but it's the journey. The last bunch like to win, the feeling of it, don't much care how they get there.
The last two make up the competitive community. It's the subset of the players who are in it only to win and have no regard for if their opponent (or anyone really) enjoys the game too. What does it matter, if only one player wins then only one person has fun anyway, right? These players are toxic. They bring the worst the game has to offer and get salty if it doesn't win for them. Other players still want to win, so they slowly get sucked into an arms race, adopt a "can't beat them join then" attitude or let their inner donkey-cave free because it's apparently acceptable. The WAAC attitude spreads, even casual players get tired of getting stommped all the time and either leave, start playing that game too and/or get salty. All the salt this generates makes people act and speak horribly too and once that's the discourse it gets a normalised
A game with terrible balance, like Warhammer, attracts that kind of rotten apple.
The easiest way to win (which is all they're after) is to bring something that can't be beaten by the other army, win before you start. Poor balance enables that so that's the game a WAAC player plays. Noob stomping is even better for them.
Even if another game gets people like that, WAACs can't be as bad and often get frustrated.
2019/07/09 05:12:54
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
It's down to balance and player types.
People play games for different reasons (a combination of them really, but one is usually ahead of the others). Some people are really into building and painting, they might as well play with the things. Some people just want to put their cool models down and have some fun. Others want to figure it out, they play to win, but it's the journey. The last bunch like to win, the feeling of it, don't much care how they get there.
The last two make up the competitive community. It's the subset of the players who are in it only to win and have no regard for if their opponent (or anyone really) enjoys the game too. What does it matter, if only one player wins then only one person has fun anyway, right? These players are toxic. They bring the worst the game has to offer and get salty if it doesn't win for them. Other players still want to win, so they slowly get sucked into an arms race, adopt a "can't beat them join then" attitude or let their inner donkey-cave free because it's apparently acceptable. The WAAC attitude spreads, even casual players get tired of getting stommped all the time and either leave, start playing that game too and/or get salty. All the salt this generates makes people act and speak horribly too and once that's the discourse it gets a normalised
A game with terrible balance, like Warhammer, attracts that kind of rotten apple.
The easiest way to win (which is all they're after) is to bring something that can't be beaten by the other army, win before you start. Poor balance enables that so that's the game a WAAC player plays. Noob stomping is even better for them.
Even if another game gets people like that, WAACs can't be as bad and often get frustrated.
You just answered OP's question... why the hate? Because people like you call competitive players toxic WAAC donkey-caves. There is no unbeatable army in this game. There are armies that have bad matchups, but there's nothing that can't be beaten.
Maybe instead of throwing around insults, try learning about the game.
2019/07/09 09:12:47
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
It's down to balance and player types.
People play games for different reasons (a combination of them really, but one is usually ahead of the others). Some people are really into building and painting, they might as well play with the things. Some people just want to put their cool models down and have some fun. Others want to figure it out, they play to win, but it's the journey. The last bunch like to win, the feeling of it, don't much care how they get there.
The last two make up the competitive community. It's the subset of the players who are in it only to win and have no regard for if their opponent (or anyone really) enjoys the game too. What does it matter, if only one player wins then only one person has fun anyway, right? These players are toxic. They bring the worst the game has to offer and get salty if it doesn't win for them. Other players still want to win, so they slowly get sucked into an arms race, adopt a "can't beat them join then" attitude or let their inner donkey-cave free because it's apparently acceptable. The WAAC attitude spreads, even casual players get tired of getting stommped all the time and either leave, start playing that game too and/or get salty. All the salt this generates makes people act and speak horribly too and once that's the discourse it gets a normalised
A game with terrible balance, like Warhammer, attracts that kind of rotten apple.
The easiest way to win (which is all they're after) is to bring something that can't be beaten by the other army, win before you start. Poor balance enables that so that's the game a WAAC player plays. Noob stomping is even better for them.
Even if another game gets people like that, WAACs can't be as bad and often get frustrated.
You just answered OP's question... why the hate? Because people like you call competitive players toxic WAAC donkey-caves. There is no unbeatable army in this game. There are armies that have bad matchups, but there's nothing that can't be beaten.
Maybe instead of throwing around insults, try learning about the game.
Hold your horses, there, sir! All I see in DarkBlack's post is that they're saying the WAAC type is to be found as a subset of competitive players and that the WAAC approach in and of itself is both toxic and generates further toxic behaviour. I don't think anyone's being insulted.
Bharring wrote: At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
2019/07/09 09:14:02
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
slave.entity wrote: I remember at my last job a few years back the game director and I were trying to get a few of the designers into 40k since and he and I were long time fans who decided to come back after hearing about 8th edition shaking things up. Everyone picked their factions and put their armies together and even got most of them fully painted before we sat down and scheduled a few intro games after work. After one or two games, both new players (both professional game designers) immediately grasped that:
1. A game of 40k is largely decided in the list-building phase
2. The optimal configuration for a given faction will always be drawn from an highly limited pool of units
3. The optimal game plan for a given list will nearly always be identical every time you play
I think they needed to play far more than a few games to better assess. New players are almost always going to get beaten, mostly because lack of skill and experience, like in anything else. Veteran players win, because of experience. And those with equal playing experience win on skill.
Also, my tourney experience disagrees with these conclusions.
#1? Largely? I would say from experience that it ought to be said in the same breath (or typed in the same paragraph) that 'list building' is a good chunk of winning, with some dice luck, but by far the larger portion of winning comes from player skill. Give me a top rated list, lemme get in 12 or so good practice games. Then give a top level GT player the same list, brand new to him, and I am going to lose because the player with the better skills will make better target priority decisions, keep objectives in focus, and simply win the game on skill. Give us both poor, awful lists, and we'll likely get the same results; I will lose.
As equals?
45% list building?
45% skill?
10% match up, terrain & dice luck?
46, 46, 8%?
49, 49 2%?
I think more like:
51 to 65% skill
48 to 34% list
the rest to match up, terrain & dice.
Approximately.
Yes, there is a sizable degree of list building involved in winning. If one shows up with only 2k worth a regular tactical squads (3e thru 5e, PFist Sgt, meltagun or plasmagun, ML/LasCan), and minimum HQs for the battalions, then yes, you're likely to lose against most other lists that show up at tourneys, unless the opponent is far more a chump than you.
I just find that too often in discussion here on dakka, that list building and GW's codex writing, are the scapegoats of players who don't do well at tourneys, or are unhappy with the game, and like to gripe and complain.
The data available from ITC shows that there are many more variations on lists that win, than in previous editions. That's a point that one might argue against, by saying, 'it is disingenuous because there are *more* codices and builds than ever', but I would re-counter "that as 8e gets older, we continue to see new, untried combos that do well" (not just evolution because of bi-annual FAQ/nerfs).
For example, Don Hooson (ITC, Calif) does well with unconventional lists: 3rd place this last BAO with Lords Discordant and Hell Turkeys, 1st place last year with a 'different' Plague Marine build that elicited much commentary on how unusual/not-previously-experienced it was).
For the many on this thread that are in the "list building is the main reason you win or lose" group, are you using BCP, BestCoastPairings? Are you looking at lists that place at top tables? I invite you to check those top table lists and those on down to the kiddie pool. See how many of Brandon Grant's long standing A.M., 6 to 9 BullGryn+Castellan+60 footer (does it have a name?) list there are at the big GTs that finish less than 50% W/L. See how well the dual Callidus/Forgeworld Custodes lists:
... actually do when in the hands of mediocre players who are not in the top 100 ITC scoring ranks.
40k doesn't have that many layers of gameplay/decision making. Again compared to warmachine which has list chicken, 3 separate win conditions, resource management in the form of focus/souls/corpses/etc, feats, themes, much shorter ranges that make positioning important, multiple formats, and for better or worse way more rules and abilities across models that interact and combo in an almost mtg like fashion. The game can be won or lost instantly from a lot of these and I'm certainly missing some. 40k is fun, I think it has the best setting and miniatures but I'd like to hear how anybody who has played in tournaments for both of these systems can think 40k isn't shallow by comparison.
It's not that there's no skill involved. There totally is. Top tables 40k is always a blast to watch because great players do have the ability to pull off some amazing stuff with how they drive their maximally optimized lists.
I suspect what's frustrating for some people is that list building can feel like such a deciding factor that it feels almost pointless for them to even play the game in many situations.
It's not just a skill disadvantage for the weaker player. It's likely the weaker player doesn't even have the right models. They might not even like the models required to make a faction "viable" after learning what they are. The game promises you all of this amazing variety and lore, then turns around and tells you that oh, actually 70% of the models you bought are considered trash-tier and will put you at a major disadvantage every time you field them. That's probably a really crappy feeling for someone getting into the game.
2019/07/09 10:50:27
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
slave.entity wrote: I remember at my last job a few years back the game director and I were trying to get a few of the designers into 40k since and he and I were long time fans who decided to come back after hearing about 8th edition shaking things up. Everyone picked their factions and put their armies together and even got most of them fully painted before we sat down and scheduled a few intro games after work. After one or two games, both new players (both professional game designers) immediately grasped that:
1. A game of 40k is largely decided in the list-building phase 2. The optimal configuration for a given faction will always be drawn from an highly limited pool of units 3. The optimal game plan for a given list will nearly always be identical every time you play
I think they needed to play far more than a few games to better assess. New players are almost always going to get beaten, mostly because lack of skill and experience, like in anything else. Veteran players win, because of experience. And those with equal playing experience win on skill.
Also, my tourney experience disagrees with these conclusions.
#1? Largely? I would say from experience that it ought to be said in the same breath (or typed in the same paragraph) that 'list building' is a good chunk of winning, with some dice luck, but by far the larger portion of winning comes from player skill. Give me a top rated list, lemme get in 12 or so good practice games. Then give a top level GT player the same list, brand new to him, and I am going to lose because the player with the better skills will make better target priority decisions, keep objectives in focus, and simply win the game on skill. Give us both poor, awful lists, and we'll likely get the same results; I will lose.
As equals? 45% list building? 45% skill? 10% match up, terrain & dice luck? 46, 46, 8%? 49, 49 2%?
I think more like: 51 to 65% skill 48 to 34% list the rest to match up, terrain & dice. Approximately.
Yes, there is a sizable degree of list building involved in winning. If one shows up with only 2k worth a regular tactical squads (3e thru 5e, PFist Sgt, meltagun or plasmagun, ML/LasCan), and minimum HQs for the battalions, then yes, you're likely to lose against most other lists that show up at tourneys, unless the opponent is far more a chump than you.
I just find that too often in discussion here on dakka, that list building and GW's codex writing, are the scapegoats of players who don't do well at tourneys, or are unhappy with the game, and like to gripe and complain.
The data available from ITC shows that there are many more variations on lists that win, than in previous editions. That's a point that one might argue against, by saying, 'it is disingenuous because there are *more* codices and builds than ever', but I would re-counter "that as 8e gets older, we continue to see new, untried combos that do well" (not just evolution because of bi-annual FAQ/nerfs).
For example, Don Hooson (ITC, Calif) does well with unconventional lists: 3rd place this last BAO with Lords Discordant and Hell Turkeys, 1st place last year with a 'different' Plague Marine build that elicited much commentary on how unusual/not-previously-experienced it was).
For the many on this thread that are in the "list building is the main reason you win or lose" group, are you using BCP, BestCoastPairings? Are you looking at lists that place at top tables? I invite you to check those top table lists and those on down to the kiddie pool. See how many of Brandon Grant's long standing A.M., 6 to 9 BullGryn+Castellan+60 footer (does it have a name?) list there are at the big GTs that finish less than 50% W/L. See how well the dual Callidus/Forgeworld Custodes lists:
... actually do when in the hands of mediocre players who are not in the top 100 ITC scoring ranks.
40k doesn't have that many layers of gameplay/decision making. Again compared to warmachine which has list chicken, 3 separate win conditions, resource management in the form of focus/souls/corpses/etc, feats, themes, much shorter ranges that make positioning important, multiple formats, and for better or worse way more rules and abilities across models that interact and combo in an almost mtg like fashion. The game can be won or lost instantly from a lot of these and I'm certainly missing some. 40k is fun, I think it has the best setting and miniatures but I'd like to hear how anybody who has played in tournaments for both of these systems can think 40k isn't shallow by comparison.
It's not that there's no skill involved. There totally is. Top tables 40k is always a blast to watch because great players do have the ability to pull off some amazing stuff with how they drive their maximally optimized lists.
I suspect what's frustrating for some people is that list building can feel like such a deciding factor that it feels almost pointless for them to even play the game in many situations.
It's not just a skill disadvantage for the weaker player. It's likely the weaker player doesn't even have the right models. They might not even like the models required to make a faction "viable" after learning what they are. The game promises you all of this amazing variety and lore, then turns around and tells you that oh, actually 70% of the models you bought are considered trash-tier and will put you at a major disadvantage every time you field them. That's probably a really crappy feeling for someone getting into the game.
Well again, the issue is that "skill" in 40k is incredibly shallow. It's pretty much picking what to attack, and most of the major choices are decided in listbuilding. If you watched a high end Warmahordes game, for example, there's a lot more tactical maneuvering there because it matters more. Terrain matters more, positioning matters way more (it's entirely possible to lose a game because you moved a single model in a unit a fraction of an inch too far forward), etc. Listbuilding is still a major factor there as well, but there looks to be way more depth afterwards. 40k, even the tournament games I've watched, are mostly list building exercises with some very superficial tactical application during the game itself.
That's not to say there's no skill involved, since there is, but it's not exactly deep and complex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/09 10:55:10
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/07/09 12:40:46
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
I agree with that. As mentioned earlier the optimal game plan for any competitive list will pretty much be the same every time you play. After your list is optimized playing the game is mostly about going through the motions. There is a skill factor for sure but listbuilding is number one.
For a casual player, learning how much an average pick-up game is decided by listbuilding can be really disappointing.
For a competitive player, it's easy for things to get stale since the decision tree in optimal play is always extremely limited.
2019/07/09 12:57:11
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
The #1 reason I see for people leaving GW games, and often the hobby, is that they go in to the store, love models, buy those models, and find out that the game is about listbuilding and they chose wrong and get stomped.
Because we are all sold on the laughable fallacy that GW points are supposed to equal balance (see my sig).
They either sell their stuff off and buy a broken army list, or they sell their stuff off and leave entirely because they had a major negative hit in their enthusiasm.
The #2 reason I see people leave GW games and this hobby is that even if they love listbuilding and min/max play, the excitement of playing basically the same game over and over going through the motions lasts as long as they enjoy the social company of their opponents. Largely 2-3 years before the burnout hits and they leave from boredom.
A big cause of angst with the "casual or narrative" crowd, and it is not acceptable to lambaste anyone period, but it comes from the competitive groups being easier to organize and attract the most people, so the narrative casual crowd has to fight for new blood, while the competitive crowd is like a woman on a dating site, she merely has to log in.
Its been the same sort of cycle since forever.
2019/07/09 13:07:10
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
It's down to balance and player types.
People play games for different reasons (a combination of them really, but one is usually ahead of the others). Some people are really into building and painting, they might as well play with the things. Some people just want to put their cool models down and have some fun. Others want to figure it out, they play to win, but it's the journey. The last bunch like to win, the feeling of it, don't much care how they get there.
The last two make up the competitive community. It's the subset of the players who are in it only to win and have no regard for if their opponent (or anyone really) enjoys the game too. What does it matter, if only one player wins then only one person has fun anyway, right? These players are toxic. They bring the worst the game has to offer and get salty if it doesn't win for them. Other players still want to win, so they slowly get sucked into an arms race, adopt a "can't beat them join then" attitude or let their inner donkey-cave free because it's apparently acceptable. The WAAC attitude spreads, even casual players get tired of getting stommped all the time and either leave, start playing that game too and/or get salty. All the salt this generates makes people act and speak horribly too and once that's the discourse it gets a normalised
A game with terrible balance, like Warhammer, attracts that kind of rotten apple.
The easiest way to win (which is all they're after) is to bring something that can't be beaten by the other army, win before you start. Poor balance enables that so that's the game a WAAC player plays. Noob stomping is even better for them.
Even if another game gets people like that, WAACs can't be as bad and often get frustrated.
You just answered OP's question... why the hate? Because people like you call competitive players toxic WAAC donkey-caves. There is no unbeatable army in this game. There are armies that have bad matchups, but there's nothing that can't be beaten.
Maybe instead of throwing around insults, try learning about the game.
Hold your horses, there, sir! All I see in DarkBlack's post is that they're saying the WAAC type is to be found as a subset of competitive players and that the WAAC approach in and of itself is both toxic and generates further toxic behaviour. I don't think anyone's being insulted.
Indeed. Thank you for responding for me, more politely than I would have. You even got my screen name right. Good show!
2019/07/09 13:35:53
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Taking list-building out of the equation shows some of the strengths of Warhammer as a game, as well as who's a skilled player. It's like how they make game length random so it wasn't just Eldar shooting you and then jumping on the objectives at the end of the game; without that suddenly the possibilities in the game-space open up.
2019/07/09 13:37:16
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
After twenty years of proposing the idea and getting slagged, I think you have a better chance of playing 40k as a professional player making six figures a year before you ever see a tournament with set army lists.
2019/07/09 14:00:03
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
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.
The last time I remember GW running an official competitive gaming experience was the gaming league in 1991. In the 40k league, the only army list available was a cut-down version of the Space Marine army list with Imperial Guard and Squat infantry squads as allies. No orks, chaos, Eldar, whatever. Just Marines.
2019/07/09 16:23:11
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Because we are all sold on the laughable fallacy that GW points are supposed to equal balance (see my sig).
This is fairly true for any points system; not just GW. They mostly exist to provide an exchange rate between different classification of models, but the dream of granular pricing making hard choices in minor unit differences doesn't really pan out in any system I've played. Points help standardize game size but most of the time granularity mostly creates odd choices elsewhere in the list. Personally, I find systems with little granularity work better, because developers are forced to price a lot of things the same and instead focus on ensuring each model at that point has a distinct role.
40k often struggles because everything kind of does the same thing. Right now Terminators kind of suck, but if they were good, something else would be bad because ultimately they're just another unit defined by their survivability per point and around 10 bolter shots. GW would do well to focus on changing their rules to make them more functionally unique rather than trying to get them correctly costed.
2019/07/09 16:48:25
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Every other game i play has points, and none of them have the gw issues. If points were an accurate reflection of balance, listbuilding would not be as prominent, because 2000 points would be 2000 points.
Listbuilding is about making 2000 points worth 3000 or 4000 points while hoping your opponent does not make his list as much as yours to give you a clear advantage.
2019/07/09 17:40:21
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: Every other game i play has points, and none of them have the gw issues. If points were an accurate reflection of balance, listbuilding would not be as prominent, because 2000 points would be 2000 points.
Listbuilding is about making 2000 points worth 3000 or 4000 points while hoping your opponent does not make his list as much as yours to give you a clear advantage.
I find they all have similar issues. They might not have as many competing choices to make them quite as problematic, but pretty much every system out there has models that are too similar to another for a slightly better/worse price that determines their viability. The main advantage other game systems have is rules that allow for more diverse roles on the battlefield that puts fewer models in direct competition for the same design space. It still happens in any game that's had years to get big enough, but they do a better job having more specialized units. 40k struggles because so much of it can be boiled down to stats as simple as Offensive and Defensive Efficiency per point.
2019/07/09 18:13:03
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Since 40k is not a tactically complex game, it should be possible to make a computer simulation which runs two lists against each other a few hundred times, then spitting out a balance number based on wins versus losses. "These two lists are compatible" or "List B has a serious advantage over list A". Based on the win-loss ration (and the severity of loss), it could suggest an appropriate handicap value, allowing the disadvantaged list to add X points worth of models. I'd be really curious to know that X handicap would be between the most competitive list and the most casual one. I suspect it is large.
2019/07/09 18:24:23
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Sqorgar wrote: Since 40k is not a tactically complex game, it should be possible to make a computer simulation which runs two lists against each other a few hundred times, then spitting out a balance number based on wins versus losses. "These two lists are compatible" or "List B has a serious advantage over list A". Based on the win-loss ration (and the severity of loss), it could suggest an appropriate handicap value, allowing the disadvantaged list to add X points worth of models. I'd be really curious to know that X handicap would be between the most competitive list and the most casual one. I suspect it is large.
This is obviously not possible. Chess is not a "tactically complex game", you simply choose which pieces you move, and which pieces take other pieces. It has a defined grid of 64 spaces. It is not solved by a computer simulation yet, there too many possible permutations of the board.
Warhammer 40k has significantly more possible moves and interactions. It is absolutely not a computer solvable game.
2019/07/09 19:10:31
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
This is obviously not possible. Chess is not a "tactically complex game", you simply choose which pieces you move, and which pieces take other pieces. It has a defined grid of 64 spaces. It is not solved by a computer simulation yet, there too many possible permutations of the board.
Warhammer 40k has significantly more possible moves and interactions. It is absolutely not a computer solvable game.
First, it wouldn't be solving the game. It would simply be playing the game. The same AI opponent playing two different teams against each other using the same basic decision making process - this would be the control for "player skill", with the relative powers between the lists themselves be the variable tested. Instead of creating a mathematical equation to calculate this stuff, it simply brute forces it - playing thousands or even millions of match ups between the two. Law of really big numbers says that the more data points you have, the closer the results should approach the average.
Second, the simulation does not need to be a true one to one simulation of playing 40k. A simplified model of play could be designed that is easy for a computer to calculate in a rough approximation of the game. For instance, movement can get kind of twisty, with each model moving individually in cohesion. There's things that matter there for charging and piling in, not to mention blocking, but for the most part, the computer can just treat a unit of models as a single object, maybe even breaking the field into a grid (computers love grids). We don't need to create a true 40k AI (though I'm sure that could be great for solo play). Again, you just need to control for player skill, so having an inefficiently played list should be okay as long as the same inefficiencies play out on both sides. As long as the model maintains a relative power balance with the real game, the results should be largely applicable.
Third, the results will not guarantee a particular outcome. Because of the way dice work and the way different terrain can have an affect, playing even the same game a dozen times could yield vastly different results. I suspect that a competitive list will have a near 100% win rate against a casual list of the same points, but I think that most of the time, even a list which wins 80% of the time could yield a good game between most players if the win margins for that list is relatively small.
2019/07/09 19:23:33
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
I have written that app, I used to use it to gauge my power coefficients in my tournament lists. It worked very well.
What it did was help me create the most mathematically efficient lists that I could. It would also compare two lists against each other and predict within 5% accuracy the winner.
It was how I cracked a couple of nasty GT lists that had stumped me way back in the day, by helping me create a list that could compete against it based on numbers and estimated terrain (very little in tournaments) and player skill error probability.
It was also the basis of Azyr Comp which was the first AOS fan comp system to give AOS points before official GWGHB points removed fan systems entirely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/09 19:24:07
2019/07/10 11:07:59
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Sqorgar wrote: Since 40k is not a tactically complex game, it should be possible to make a computer simulation which runs two lists against each other a few hundred times, then spitting out a balance number based on wins versus losses. "These two lists are compatible" or "List B has a serious advantage over list A". Based on the win-loss ration (and the severity of loss), it could suggest an appropriate handicap value, allowing the disadvantaged list to add X points worth of models. I'd be really curious to know that X handicap would be between the most competitive list and the most casual one. I suspect it is large.
On a similar note there was a "drama" tournament ending I think a year or two ago now, I forget the tourney but it was the one where the final round, that was being live streamed I might add, a guy conceded because his opponent won the roll to go first and he wasn't able to seize. He immediately conceded the game (without playing a single round) and they spent a while talking about how the game would have turned out using mathhammer. No game was actually played, it was essentially two guys talking about a simulation of what would have absolutely (it's not like we're using dice, right?) happened and they both came to the conclusion that the guy who conceded would have lost anyway.
I think that says it all right there. That basically happened, albeit not with an app, in the final round of a major GT.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/10 11:08:47
2019/07/10 11:12:08
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
On a similar note there was a "drama" tournament ending I think a year or two ago now, I forget the tourney but it was the one where the final round, that was being live streamed I might add, a guy conceded because his opponent won the roll to go first and he wasn't able to seize. He immediately conceded the game (without playing a single round) and they spent a while talking about how the game would have turned out using mathhammer. No game was actually played, it was essentially two guys talking about a simulation of what would have absolutely (it's not like we're using dice, right?) happened and they both came to the conclusion that the guy who conceded would have lost anyway.
I think that says it all right there. That basically happened, albeit not with an app, in the final round of a major GT.
I don't blame or disagree with the guy who conceded (playing out a forgone conclusion isn't fun).
That's not a good sing regarding how well designed the game is though.
2019/07/10 12:15:09
Subject: Re:Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
On a similar note there was a "drama" tournament ending I think a year or two ago now, I forget the tourney but it was the one where the final round, that was being live streamed I might add, a guy conceded because his opponent won the roll to go first and he wasn't able to seize. He immediately conceded the game (without playing a single round) and they spent a while talking about how the game would have turned out using mathhammer. No game was actually played, it was essentially two guys talking about a simulation of what would have absolutely (it's not like we're using dice, right?) happened and they both came to the conclusion that the guy who conceded would have lost anyway.
I think that says it all right there. That basically happened, albeit not with an app, in the final round of a major GT.
I don't blame or disagree with the guy who conceded (playing out a forgone conclusion isn't fun). That's not a good sing regarding how well designed the game is though.
The main issue was that you know, it's a dice game. His opponent might have rolled poorly, he might have rolled well. I get conceding a game that after a couple turns you realize you can't win, but before even playing the first turn? I would have even understood if he had played the first turn, lost half his army, and then was like yeah I can't win this. At least there was an attempt. It was pretty bad to see a live-streamed final last 30 minutes, a few seconds of which were actually part of the game (the initiative roll).
IMHO pretty much shows why "competitive" 40k is a massive joke and this desire to turn it into an e-sport (t-sport if you will) is utterly ridiculous. That entire mindset seems so far off from how tabletop games were intended that it actually makes me physically angry to think about.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/10 12:17:42
