Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It’s not so much that the game is all about list building but just that that’s the portion of the game easiest to discuss on forums. The game is more about list building than it should be, but forums definitely make it dominate the discussion.

 Horst wrote:

 auticus wrote:
We will never know. Because no one will try it. Because few would go if they were forced to use what they consider a non optimal army. Even if everyone had to field similar armies at that event.

And based on my past experience that's because a lot of folks know they wouldnt do so hot without the ability to bend the game.

Actual tactics discussions in 40k are light because indeed... its listbuilding and then playing is target priority.

You cant really have meaningful discussion beyond that and the “tactics” forums reflect that.

Yes, listbuilding is a component. One I and many other competitive gamers enjoy. Removing that would remove much of the fun. Again, if you don't like tournaments just don't play them, you don't have to try and ruin the fun of those who do enjoy it. And saying our fun is "wrong" answers OPs question, that's why casuals and other non tournament players get hate.

I think that the problem is that we need two games.
One for listbuildy gotcha artists,
and one for RPG simu-realists.

I am not sure why GW doesn't just develop add-ons, even levels of granularity.
Buy this book to get rules at this level fo realism.
Extended rules for terrain and cover - with special kits to support this realism, e.g. moving doors, detachable wall sections.
Could be done and could be good bizniss.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
It’s not so much that the game is all about list building but just that that’s the portion of the game easiest to discuss on forums. The game is more about list building than it should be, but forums definitely make it dominate the discussion.

Why would this be the case?
Certainly, lists are easy to share,
and some people can go shopping with mom's credit card,
but why would this necessarily be the case if it weren't also the key to tabletop glory?

 Horst wrote:

 auticus wrote:
We will never know. Because no one will try it. Because few would go if they were forced to use what they consider a non optimal army. Even if everyone had to field similar armies at that event.

And based on my past experience that's because a lot of folks know they wouldnt do so hot without the ability to bend the game.

Actual tactics discussions in 40k are light because indeed... its listbuilding and then playing is target priority.

You cant really have meaningful discussion beyond that and the “tactics” forums reflect that.

Yes, listbuilding is a component. One I and many other competitive gamers enjoy. Removing that would remove much of the fun. Again, if you don't like tournaments just don't play them, you don't have to try and ruin the fun of those who do enjoy it. And saying our fun is "wrong" answers OPs question, that's why casuals and other non tournament players get hate.

Your point would be valid if tournaments were the only place the listbuilding over everything else existed.

As tournament mentality bleeds out into every aspect of play, simply not playing in tournaments does nothing.

Youll also have a hard time pinning me ever saying youre playing “wrong” because i never said that, wrote it, or thought it.

I do find it obnoxious and heavily irritating that that is for many of us the only way we get to play, and i spent ten years or so doing the gt listbuilding thing so ive been on both sides but it is definitely not “wrong”.

I would enjoy playing in a tournament with set lists. It would be a really interesting experience! I do think that the casual/competitive dichotomy is overblown though.

I like the background and the look of the minis and I tend to build my armies based on what I like rather than what works extremely well. I might try to make what I like work in the context of the list I make, but ultimately I am gonna go with the army I like and the theme I like.

But I enjoy playing the game to win and do not enjoy arbitrary nonsense in the game for that reason. I like to do my best to win when I play and I like to win too. I think most players are like this to some extent. Making it into a binary "casual, does not care if they win or lose" vs. "compeitive, would play with counters and abstract unit names and just want to win" is stupid and overly simplistic.

 jeff white wrote:

 solkan wrote:

 auticus wrote:
You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.

If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.

The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.

“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”

Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.

Or, encourage people to not 'buy this XYZ to win'.
This attitude I saw with CCG players in the early 90s while working at a comics/game shop.
That is NOT how and why people bought armies in 40k or Warhammer.
Then, it was fantasy sci fi RPG nerds who liked hobby and chess, with beer bongs and sure, pretzels.
It was simulation, very first personal.

Now, everything is 'meta' this or 'that 'meta that... e.g. the knight meta.

This is the difference here.

You go to an ice cream store. Everyone is eating chocolate. Everyone is happy eating their chocolate. Except you, who doesn't want to eat chocolate, and knows that it's better to eat vanilla.

Alas, everyone likes chocolate and the voice of vanilla will forever be drowned out under all of the voices telling each other to continuing eating chocolate.

The course that tournament discussions always seem to take at that point in the example:
* Obviously, the solution is to ban chocolate, because given a difference in opinion, the presenter's opinion is the correct one.

Instead of:
* Gosh, it's going to take a lot of work for me to get the word out to the other people that want to eat vanilla, or don't know that they'd like vanilla but haven't tried it yet.

Complaining about "the meta" is just sitting on your chair on your porch complaining about "kids these days".

Edit: I'm pretty sure the one universal factor for gaming is that no one ever won a convert over to a new idea by telling them "You're playing it wrong" and expecting to be believed. If that worked, there wouldn't be threads like this.

Wayniac wrote:
Having the equivalent of set decks in wargaming for competitive purposes would be met with rioting.

No, I don't think so. I mean, the equivalent of Keyforge for wargaming would be a new game being released with set lists. Of course if 40k switched suddenly to set lists there would be right. Same thing if Magic switched to set deck. But a new game, entering the market with a low cost of entry, could work. In fact, I am not very familiar with AOS games, but I think that's exactly what Warhammer Underworld is doing!

New wargames entering the market already have the megalithic obstacle of trying to get any form of playerbase (unless you have the license of a massive franchise like starwars and even then other than xwing, those games have also not been super massively popular that I have seen)

We've had industry veterans like Alessio and Priestley release new games this year which were met with a wet fart by the gaming community simply because investing in a system when you don't know if you can find players is failure (which is how 40k continues to be a juggernaut, you can find a game anywhere on the globe)

A new wargame coming out and additionally trying to force set tournament lists I doubt would be well received - at - all.

 solkan wrote:


You go to an ice cream store. Everyone is eating chocolate. Everyone is happy eating their chocolate. Except you, who doesn't want to eat chocolate, and knows that it's better to eat vanilla.

Alas, everyone likes chocolate and the voice of vanilla will forever be drowned out under all of the voices telling each other to continuing eating chocolate.

The course that tournament discussions always seem to take at that point in the example:
* Obviously, the solution is to ban chocolate, because given a difference in opinion, the presenter's opinion is the correct one.

Instead of:
* Gosh, it's going to take a lot of work for me to get the word out to the other people that want to eat vanilla, or don't know that they'd like vanilla but haven't tried it yet.

Complaining about "the meta" is just sitting on your chair on your porch complaining about "kids these days".

Edit: I'm pretty sure the one universal factor for gaming is that no one ever won a convert over to a new idea by telling them "You're playing it wrong" and expecting to be believed. If that worked, there wouldn't be threads like this.

What you have reported,
and what actually happened,
are two completely different things.

"New idea"?
"You're playing it wrong"?

The more that I read threads like this,
the more that they show that the differences between what is expected of 40k
are differences in cognitive styles.

There are essentially two worthy of note -
one, that seeks the easiest way and, though zealously enforcing rules, is not invested in their creation, maintenance, issues of systemic injustice due said rules and other such truly "meta-" level thinking.
two, that does the work of transforming what is given into something better, is invested in their creation, maintenance, issues of systemic injustice ("imbalance") due said rules and other such truly "meta-" level thinking.
The former style is disproportionately "normal" as the latter requires courage, even moral courage, strength of conviction and tenacity.
The former style is easier, and in fact how most people spend their entire lives, with many escaping the terror of angst awakened at confronting the meaninglessness of life revealed upon recognition that the former style is habitual, leaving one with an empty, non-productive and non-constructive life absent display of what everyone from Aristotle Adam Smith would have considered social virtue.
The latter, is "authentic" and the former ruled by idle chatter, gossip, everyday distractions (list building and net lists and such gamey "metas" and so on).
The preceding is based in careful study of philosophy, psychology and neurology directed at understanding this and closely related issues for the past 20 years.

Maybe the people seeking "authentic" engagement with their hobby and fellow hobbyists are expecting too much.
I feel that I am expecting too much from this forum, sometimes, when I see my posts being what must be purposefully misread in order to deflect discussion into some respondent's safe zone.

All that aside, I did watch some live-streamed 40k in order to see how this e-sports 40k wet-dream might play out.
With decent commentators, some table side interviews, some recaps, and lots of tables all playing at once, with some better camera and vid processing work, sure, this might be as entertaining as watching golf I suppose.
Is there going to be sponsorship money for it?
Maybe, paint companies and brush companies and painting services who knows...
Will it pay salaries?
Maybe, but by then, I imagine the game to be even less appealing to the first cognitive style described above, meaning that if GW wants to keep this segment of the population engaged (not many people habitually engage in this cognitive style, but they do tend to be influential), then GW will need two distinct rule-sets for 40k.

Just my opinion.

Given the radical split in the types of thinking going on in either segment of the overall "community",
the potential for a reconciliation is simply not there.

In short, why the hate?
Because these two different ways of thinking about and engaging with the world and with others leave the two groups effectively unable to agree on what is "good", either what is given and convenient, or what is just and best regardless of effort.

In addendum to the discussion re millennials, above, it appears that this ascription applies to the first cognitive style regardless of birth date.

If anyone is interested in further reading, PM me.
I can send a reference list.

 auticus wrote:
New wargames entering the market already have the megalithic obstacle of trying to get any form of playerbase (unless you have the license of a massive franchise like starwars and even then other than xwing, those games have also not been super massively popular that I have seen)

We've had industry veterans like Alessio and Priestley release new games this year which were met with a wet fart by the gaming community simply because investing in a system when you don't know if you can find players is failure (which is how 40k continues to be a juggernaut, you can find a game anywhere on the globe)

A new wargame coming out and additionally trying to force set tournament lists I doubt would be well received - at - all.

This. Also, at least in most parts of the USA where the vast majority of games happen in a game store as opposed to an independent club, nobody will touch a game that the store doesn't stock, and the store often doesn't want to stock untested games because they aren't sure if it sells (which at least makes sense. Not wanting to play an otherwise-good game because your local store doesn't stock it is IMHO stupid). Not to mention that most game stores I've seen do very little to promote games that they do stock, so even if they stocked the game it's doubtful they would try to pitch it to the community.

So the result is that games that might otherwise have a good fanbase are ignored and never given a chance because 1) The local stores don't/won't/can't carry their product and 2) THe local players won't be aware of it or touch it if they can't buy it at the game store, and/or 3) The local players already play one expensive miniature game and don't want to invest in another, or they might be interested but don't know if anyone else is and figure it's not worth buying into. As a result, the majority of alternative games simply die on the vine as people are set in their ways. Hell I have actually been cussed out in the past for trying to suggest a different game to the community; I got told off once for "trying to push [my] pet game" (despite the fact I hadn't played this game, it just looked neat) when everyone was "perfectly happy" with Warhammer. So you suffer blowback in the community itself for trying to suggest an alternative game.

It's way different from the club atmosphere where you could likely get a 2-player starter for a game, turn up to club night and offer demos. Sure, it might not work in that case either but it already has a way better chance than relying on a game store to know about the game, purchase the product, and tell people about it to drum up interest. For whatever reason trying that approach in a game store is often never met with interest.

 jeff white wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
It’s not so much that the game is all about list building but just that that’s the portion of the game easiest to discuss on forums. The game is more about list building than it should be, but forums definitely make it dominate the discussion.

Why would this be the case?
Certainly, lists are easy to share,
and some people can go shopping with mom's credit card,
but why would this necessarily be the case if it weren't also the key to tabletop glory?

List building is certainly a factor to success in any game system out there, but not the only one. Meaningful variety requires that bad lists can happen in even the best balanced games. As a hypothetical example, a faction may be given LasCannons to crack armor, but a player may refuse to take LasCannons and then complain when they struggle against armor. You can give players tools, the necessity to use those tools, but you can't make them use them. The point is, list building IS a factor and too much of one in 40k, but its not alone.

Most discussion looking for advice is looking to improve without having to actually play the dozens of games required to learn. This is even true of list building, where you really hone in on a list by playing repeatedly and adjusting as you find inefficiencies. The same is true of other factors like decision making, positioning, etc. The difference is, the result of list building is pretty easy for other people to copy and see some success with, even if they probably won't be as successful as they lack an understanding of some of the tricks available. The other factors are a lot harder to share, particularly in the TLDR culture of forums. People buy a car and just ask for the keys. No one wants to sit and read the manual.

Well, part of it is that other games, while list building is a thing, it doesn't seem to be the major factor like in Warhammer. Like when I played Warmahordes there was a BIG emphasis on list building, but it wasn't as black and white.

You would often have people say they wanted to use units X, Y, and Z and ask for (and receive!) advice on how to synergize well with those units and what to take to complement them. There was almost never cases where the advice was "Drop X, Y, and Z and just spam A and B instead" which is a lot closer to the sort of list advice you get in Warhammer where someone wants to use a unit and basically gets told that unit sucks, throw away half of your list and go spam the netlist-du-jour instead.

I think that's a big reason why Warhammer *feels* like list building is the only thing that matters; it's the main thing people focus on because it's so dominant. Sure you occasionally get the tournament results with some sort f unorthodox or "non-meta" list performing well or winning, but by and large, it's the same general lists with minor tweaks, which generally means that list discussion is cut and dried without much leeway if someone really wants to use a certain unit.

Granted, that's a big flaw of the game design and not part of list building, but it also makes the game feel like list building is the only thing that matters since it's so frequent to find people saying Unit X sucks don't bother taking it rather than here's how you can make Unit X work decently. The emphasis is on what you take, rather than how you use it.

 auticus wrote:
A new wargame coming out and additionally trying to force set tournament lists I doubt would be well received - at - all.

Well, that's your opinion. A properly argumented and supported opinion, you definitely make a strong case, but I'm still not 100% convinced it is an absolute certainty that a new wargame with set lists for tournaments (or even all games) would do worse than a new wargame without set lists. I think the novelty factor might even play in its favor.

Try it out and let us know how it works.

Something I was betting on for 6th and 8th edition was a renewed focus on Terrain, and specifically letting players bring terrain paid for out of their army points. Didn't happen, presumably because terrain tends to be an afterthought for so many players. Which is weird, because it has such an impact on the game.

Wayniac wrote:
Well, part of it is that other games, while list building is a thing, it doesn't seem to be the major factor like in Warhammer. Like when I played Warmahordes there was a BIG emphasis on list building, but it wasn't as black and white.

You would often have people say they wanted to use units X, Y, and Z and ask for (and receive!) advice on how to synergize well with those units and what to take to complement them. There was almost never cases where the advice was "Drop X, Y, and Z and just spam A and B instead" which is a lot closer to the sort of list advice you get in Warhammer where someone wants to use a unit and basically gets told that unit sucks, throw away half of your list and go spam the netlist-du-jour instead.

I think that's a big reason why Warhammer *feels* like list building is the only thing that matters; it's the main thing people focus on because it's so dominant. Sure you occasionally get the tournament results with some sort f unorthodox or "non-meta" list performing well or winning, but by and large, it's the same general lists with minor tweaks, which generally means that list discussion is cut and dried without much leeway if someone really wants to use a certain unit.

Granted, that's a big flaw of the game design and not part of list building, but it also makes the game feel like list building is the only thing that matters since it's so frequent to find people saying Unit X sucks don't bother taking it rather than here's how you can make Unit X work decently. The emphasis is on what you take, rather than how you use it.

40k's big issue is just that there's no real in faction interaction. It's largerly an exercise in mechanical input/output of DPS and target selection. List design is largely an exercise in finding the most efficient output per point which means its really hard to have a reason to take a list of a significantly different style without changing factions.

40k's big issue is just that there's no real in faction interaction. It's largerly an exercise in mechanical input/output of DPS and target selection. List design is largely an exercise in finding the most efficient output per point which means its really hard to have a reason to take a list of a significantly different style without changing factions.

Spot on.

Which is weird, because it has such an impact on the game.

Terrain has always been one of those things that people both don't want to invest in / building, and don't like impacting their game.

Even back in "the day" so many tables were either planet bowling ball because tournaments were planet bowling ball, or if they generated terrain it would be on the edge of the table out of the way.

Not surprisingly, we get AOS and new 40k that basically both almost totally disregard terrain to ancillary effects at best.

People don't like complications they're unprepared for. If they don't play locally with meaningful terrain, they get frustrated when encountering it in the wild same as when you run into a rule interaction or model you're unfamiliar with. Honestly, one of my favorite aspects of good competitive standard is they have a tendency to do a good job ensuring people play with more terrain than they naturally would, though it can also problematically make people reject playing with more terrain than they could over time.

I really like the ITC changes to terrain. First level blocking line of sight is great, it means you actually have a chance to hide smaller vehicles and infantry behind a building, since most of them have windows / doors on the first floor. Combine that with the recommended amount of terrain you're supposed to have, and it makes it so terrain actually does play a part in the game instead of just not impacting it at all.

 Horst wrote:
I really like the ITC changes to terrain. First level blocking line of sight is great, it means you actually have a chance to hide smaller vehicles and infantry behind a building, since most of them have windows / doors on the first floor. Combine that with the recommended amount of terrain you're supposed to have, and it makes it so terrain actually does play a part in the game instead of just not impacting it at all.

This I 100% agree with. But I often see even tournament tables that are sparse on meaningful terrain. AOS at least wen ta bit to correcting this by making forests block LOS, but 40k still keeps forest terrain as basically useless decoration.

I really like the ITC changes to terrain. First level blocking line of sight is great, it means you actually have a chance to hide smaller vehicles and infantry behind a building, since most of them have windows / doors on the first floor. Combine that with the recommended amount of terrain you're supposed to have, and it makes it so terrain actually does play a part in the game instead of just not impacting it at all.

Getting an overall standard on terrain and making it meaningful would go miles with how I feel about the game. The ITC changes I agree with.

Forests in 40k aren't entirely useless, they give you cover saves, and if you charge through one it's -2 to your charge distance, so it's not ENTIRELY useless, but yea they definitely don't block LoS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

I really like the ITC changes to terrain. First level blocking line of sight is great, it means you actually have a chance to hide smaller vehicles and infantry behind a building, since most of them have windows / doors on the first floor. Combine that with the recommended amount of terrain you're supposed to have, and it makes it so terrain actually does play a part in the game instead of just not impacting it at all.

Getting an overall standard on terrain and making it meaningful would go miles with how I feel about the game. The ITC changes I agree with.

I think that's something competitive and casual players can absolutely agree on... having enough terrain is important, otherwise it's just down to whoever has the best shooting army wins. If you have enough terrain, movement and positioning becomes much more important. Tournaments do need to do a better job ensuring all tables have enough terrain. I've been lucky and been to some great events recently where most of the tables have great terrain, but it's hard to get enough terrain together for a 50 table event honestly.

Realistically, ITC isn't changing terrain. You can build terrain that functions like the ITC rules just fine. The problem is just that people don't build their terrain to work well with the terrain rules. Doubly problematic, the terrain GW makes doesn't work well with their terrain rules.

In Halifax, our local terrain Magos/TO has boarded up all the ground floor windows of his terrain.

Nurglitch wrote:
In Halifax, our local terrain Magos/TO has boarded up all the ground floor windows of his terrain.

IIRC auticus tried this with his group and got complaints it "wasn't fair" because the normal GW terrain doesn't block LOS, so no terrain should because it screws over shooty armies and isn't "official". That might have been for AOS though, since I'm pretty sure the competitive players in his area would use ITC rules and that's a rule automatically.

Wayniac wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
In Halifax, our local terrain Magos/TO has boarded up all the ground floor windows of his terrain.

IIRC auticus tried this with his group and got complaints it "wasn't fair" because the normal GW terrain doesn't block LOS, so no terrain should because it screws over shooty armies and isn't "official". That might have been for AOS though, since I'm pretty sure the competitive players in his area would use ITC rules and that's a rule automatically.

This is why its fairly essentially for the maker of the game to have some standards in this regard. Of course its fair, but without the game designers officially stating so, people are left to their own personal biases.

That scenario (complaining boarding up GW model windows was cheating because that screws them over) was in both aos and 40k. Before ITC standard was their thing.

In AOS it can still happen that people complain but I haven't had anyone gripe in a while since all of the tournament AOS players are in 40k-only mode currently and have not been around our AOS games.

I have long been an advocate of Codex: Tournament that has specific rules for tourney play, table set-ups, and restricted lists for all factions. It can even provide some guidelines and methods for running/scoring tournaments.

I agree with Auticus though, it will never happen or catch on.

 Easy E wrote:
I have long been an advocate of Codex: Tournament that has specific rules for tourney play, table set-ups, and restricted lists for all factions. It can even provide some guidelines and methods for running/scoring tournaments.

I agree with Auticus though, it will never happen or catch on.

Some parts might if the ITC standardized that sort of thing. Restricted lists/comp, mandatory terrain setup, etc. But FLG seems to want to push list building, so they are exactly the sort of people who would rail against these ideas.

FLG wants to push what the majority of it's players consider fun. Most of us consider listbuilding a lot of fun, we enjoy coming up with new and exciting combos.

So why would they introduce something like set lists, when it would piss off everyone who goes to ITC events? FLG suggests terrain setup, but they make it very clear ITC is wide open, and TO's are free to do whatever they want.

So the ITC/FLG is bad went they use custom missions and some terrain rules changes, but it okay for them to alter the list building and mandated terrain?

Dakka is so fething weird.