Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 01:56:15
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
Crimson Devil wrote: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.
Apparently the new boogyman isn't changing rules or making custom missions, but rather building lists.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 07:41:45
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
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.
Some standard terrain rules are good, I agree. I would say that my impression of the ITC changes to LoS blocking on the ground floor was more a practical consideration than it was a real rules change. They already had a bunch of standardised terrain that didn't function well with the new edition so introduced a rule to deal with that rather than modify all their terrain (which I don't have a problem with, in general). However, we've found that using that as a blanket rule can have some issues with flexibility of terrain (now you can't put ruins down that don't block LoS on the ground floor) so we're in the process of gradually upgrading our own terrain so it largely blocks LoS on the ground floor, but not in all ruins, allowing us to use true LoS and still have a decent amount of LoS-blocking terrain.
The less said about ITC enclosed ruins the better, I think.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 10:22:32
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Horst wrote: Crimson Devil wrote: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.
Apparently the new boogyman isn't changing rules or making custom missions, but rather building lists.
My point was basically competitive players will bitch and whine about stuff unless ITC adopts it, then it's good and wholesome.
ITC Missions = Good because they let you plan more about your list (secondaries) and since the mission and objectives are virtually the same and predetermined you can plan deployment and moves out as well.
CA Missions = Bad because they have extra quirks that encourage bringing variety and discourage "meta" lists. Bad because it's not something you can know beforehand.
If ITC suddenly had their own terrain rules that replaced the default (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea), it would be great. But there is Cities of Death which has much better terrain rules, and I haven't seen anyone give a gak about those.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 13:42:06
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
There's a lot of problem with pre-set tourney lists. For one, its awful on GW to have huge chunks of their product catalog go from unpopular to actually unplayable. Having stores stocked with the only models you can play in a tournament at any time is a logistics nightmare and people would quickly grow frustrated when they can't play because tournaments are mandating a new model that players can't meet demand of. Generally speaking any change is going to be disruptive. There's a big difference between a forced change and letting players switch at their own pace.
The bigger issue though, is the assumption that whoever makes the lists will get the balance right and in a situation like this its got to be more than right; its got to be nearly perfect for people to accept the idea. It's one things when players dig and discover imbalances in a game; its another entirely when they're handed one and simultaneously lose access to tools to react to it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 13:49:46
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
|
Their argument is that it is okay, even preferable for the mission or terrain to put you at a disadvantage in a game, but it is wrong, possible malicious for your opponent to cause that disadvantage.
So in this case set lists would fall into the preferable disadvantage because it is caused by a 3rd party.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/16 13:51:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 14:53:51
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks
|
Wayniac wrote:
CA Missions = Bad because they have extra quirks that encourage bringing variety and discourage "meta" lists. Bad because it's not something you can know beforehand.
If ITC suddenly had their own terrain rules that replaced the default (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea), it would be great. But there is Cities of Death which has much better terrain rules, and I haven't seen anyone give a gak about those.
This is what I am hearing, mostly.
Again, it is the list building phase that seems sacrosanct for some more than others.
These players seem especially afraid that someone might remove
the "super-combo CP farming win-button"( tm) from the game mechanics.
Cities of Death has gotten favorable attention where I have seen... Automatically Appended Next Post: I see this from another thread:
Wayniac wrote:I think the big question is like with anything else, will the competitive crowd that will latch onto matched play by the book tournament-style games only care about these Advanced rules. If they do not then they might as well not exist given how most things will gravitate towards only the basic rules
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/16 15:07:09
. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 15:15:46
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Tournament standard does leak into casual play and usually does dictate what rules are deemed acceptable to use in pickup play.
Which is why when people say "then don't play in tournaments and you'll be fine", that that doesn't hold much water.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 16:43:08
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
Crimson Devil wrote: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.
I don't think it should be the standard for all tournaments or whatever, but it is an interesting set up for an event and I would like to play in an event like that. It would make the focus be on playing the game, rather than listbuilding. I think it would be a lot of fun and generate quality play.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 16:45:56
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I recall someone arguing that being able to sit down and play as if at a tournament, without negotiating and discussing the kind of game you want to play with the models and terrain you have available, would be ideal for casual pick-up games.
Mind you, that excludes the kind of fun test-matches like whether 10 Marines and their Rhino can fight their way through 100 Guardsmen and stuff, or what-have-you. Mind you, that's a different way to play than tournament or casual pick-up.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 16:47:53
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
I think having a robust and balanced basic game that has a good default scenario is good for pick up games, definitely.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 17:11:43
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
jeff white wrote:
...afraid that someone might remove
the "super-combo CP farming win-button"( tm) from the game mechanics.
Tell me, which list is that? Because your comment just comes off to me as ignorant of the tournament scene. What list exactly is it that is a "super-combo CP farming win-button"?
Name me one list that is absolutely unstoppable in 8th edition, and I'll shut up and accept that you are right. Every list out there has a counter, no list is a "win button".
Some lists are "lose buttons" though, where no matter how you play them you're gonna get stomped. That's to be expected though. There are a solid 10-15 "good" style lists that will do well at any given tournament though, and in each of those there are variations you can customize to base on your playstyle. Honestly your comments come off as someone who plays their fluffy space marines, and doesn't want to be bothered to change up what he brings against newer style 8th edition lists to win.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 17:51:43
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
|
The problem is when there are entire factions which are not included in your 10-15 entire lists and other factions have 3 or so of the lists to themselves.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 18:09:29
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Or when your faction has to play that one specific list in order to have any semblance of a good game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 18:11:52
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no "CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 18:35:49
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Horst wrote:Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no " CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Playing devils advocate, My question would be this:
'A LOT of lists' is is how many lists, exactly as a percentage/fraction of how many lists in total?
I mean, let's face it, having two dozen top tier lists isn't that meaningful if they're among a field of, say, two thousand lists, in total.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/16 18:36:57
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 18:36:50
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
I know there aren't any instant win button lists. Because at the most busted level of the game there are a handful of busted lists that can beat each other, there is no one of those lists that will always win.
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies. The other half is that the game has no resemblance to actual military tactics and thats a gamestyle I don't enjoy.
However, that has nothing to do with tournament or casual. That has to do with design decisions made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 18:39:10
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
Depends what you define as "how many lists".
About 75% of the codex in this game actually have valid competitive lists, that could do well at an ITC event. Maybe half of those have only 1-2 "strong" lists possible though, like Necrons and Tau have pretty specific lists that do well, while Chaos, Imperial, and Eldar players are free to build much more varied lists.
Most of the "non-competitive" codex that are really bad are space marines, unfortunately.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 18:47:35
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
It just occurred to me: Set lists would also open up the scoring to Best Overall and Best X List (where X = Space Marines, Knights, Orks, etc).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 18:47:36
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Horst wrote:Depends what you define as "how many lists".
About 75% of the codex in this game actually have valid competitive lists, that could do well at an ITC event. Maybe half of those have only 1-2 "strong" lists possible though, like Necrons and Tau have pretty specific lists that do well, while Chaos, Imperial, and Eldar players are free to build much more varied lists.
Most of the "non-competitive" codex that are really bad are space marines, unfortunately.
You didn't answer the question.
'A LOT of lists' is is how many lists, exactly as a percentage/fraction of how many lists in total?
Pointing out that there's a dozen strong builds out of how many units, unit types in how many codices kinda reinforces wayniacs point rather than yours.
In addition, focusing in on tournament lists as a subset is also misleading, as a dozen strong builds here, whilst it looks better against the few dozen lists that also turn up at tournaments that don't get to the top table, is still leaving 80-90% of the game behind.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/16 18:48:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 18:59:35
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
auticus wrote:
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.
There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:19:45
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks
|
Nurglitch wrote:I recall someone arguing that being able to sit down and play as if at a tournament, without negotiating and discussing the kind of game you want to play with the models and terrain you have available, would be ideal for casual pick-up games.
Mind you, that excludes the kind of fun test-matches like whether 10 Marines and their Rhino can fight their way through 100 Guardsmen and stuff, or what-have-you. Mind you, that's a different way to play than tournament or casual pick-up.
I found that this benefits from realism imported into the game mechanics
more than it does an abstract simple set of tourney-ready rules.
It is possible to have an interesting conversation
even with strangers.
Sadly, I feel that it is due a culture bent on win at all costs
or suffer stifling poverty for the lack of initiative
that characterizes latter day corporate capitalism in the West,
that feeds the need to create an environment
in which playtesting the same 'list' on the same set of missions on the same types of terrain
should be the way to prepare for a 40k game,
as if winning in such an environment is to express a sort of virtue essential to the enterprise.
I think that there is more to it, to this game, hobby, whatever, than that. Automatically Appended Next Post: LunarSol wrote: auticus wrote:
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.
There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.
So, that means that it shouldn't be the case...?
Is this what they call an "is... ought..." fallacy? Automatically Appended Next Post: Nurglitch wrote:It just occurred to me: Set lists would also open up the scoring to Best Overall and Best X List (where X = Space Marines, Knights, Orks, etc).
Wouldn't it be cool if the lists were 'blind peer reviewed' by a sort of editorial review board,
noted scholars for lore/fluff, fit with event theme, and use of units, showing love to the iconic over-costed but awesome, while recognizing the undervalued strengths and army synergies accessible only to the truly well-versed...
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/16 19:25:09
. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:28:07
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Deadnight wrote:
You didn't answer the question.
'A LOT of lists' is is how many lists, exactly as a percentage/fraction of how many lists in total?
Pointing out that there's a dozen strong builds out of how many units, unit types in how many codices kinda reinforces wayniacs point rather than yours.
In addition, focusing in on tournament lists as a subset is also misleading, as a dozen strong builds here, whilst it looks better against the few dozen lists that also turn up at tournaments that don't get to the top table, is still leaving 80-90% of the game behind.
I hate to bring up Sirlin because I rather despise his closing arguments when it comes to game theory, but I do quite like his insight getting there. One of the more interesting concepts is taking a step back and really evaluating competitive variety. In a game like 40k, asking how many lists total is rather misleading as their are far too many potential combinations to really track and some decisions and variations are likely to have a minimal impact on what competitive tier a list archetype falls into.
Ultimately, having a dozen viable competitive options is pretty rare in any game, no matter how many choices it has. Highly tuned competitive fighting games with only 10 characters often only find 6 of them truly viable. So is it better to have 6 real choices out of 10 or 15 out 100? The latter gives you more variety, but the former gives you fewer disappointing options. In games like 40k with a large number of factions you can ask similar questions. Lets say 40k has 20 factions and 15 competitive lists. Is it better to have 15 factions that are all competitive with a single configuration or 3 factions that are competitive 5 different ways?
I've definitely enjoyed games more as I've gotten away from being concerned with all the bad choices and focused on how much variety there can be among the good choices. I tend to evaluate balance in tiers, with the number of competitive factions being the most important factor to me, followed up by how many valid options there are within those factions. I'll latch on to pet models are care if they are among the competitive set, but I'd rather see a struggling faction improve even if my favorite model gets left behind.
Right now 40k has one of more varied competitive pools I've seen in wargaming. Of course, there's a ton of models and options that aren't part of that set; but that's somewhat inevitable when your system has enough options to make a an army 6 times over without repeating models. More variety is obviously better and its awfully disappointing when something you love is bad, but I'm still happier looking at how many options there are than worry about how many options just don't fit.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:36:15
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks
|
auticus wrote:I know there aren't any instant win button lists. Because at the most busted level of the game there are a handful of busted lists that can beat each other, there is no one of those lists that will always win.
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies. The other half is that the game has no resemblance to actual military tactics and thats a gamestyle I don't enjoy.
However, that has nothing to do with tournament or casual. That has to do with design decisions made.
On this note, yeah, I wasn't pointing to any particular magic recipe,
just the fact that half the game involves having a magic recipe going in,
rather than here we are, a rag tag set of marine lost in the warp 10000yrs,
still believing that the emporer rules
trying to make our way home,
heroes in a vacuum of rent space,
and lo, we are hailed by an alien world beacon...
Who shall we send to investigate?
1500points of cool stuff.
Some of the ideas in the thread so far
would work like this:
On the way down tot he planet surface roll a dice:
on a 1, lose one unit of Heavy Support (your opponent choses).
on a 2, lose one unit of Fast Attack (your opponent chooses).
and so on...
or something like that, many possibilities ...
Would be awesome,
and - given that super-combo beat sticks are sometimes obvious
removing a key unit can deflate some sails going in to that first turn.
Frankly, I like letting the opposing player either choose 1 unit to remove completely from the game
or 2 units to keep off the table the first turn.
Or, you have to play the opponent's list!
So, everyone then must make the least synergistic!
Silly, but this is the idea.
De-emphasize list-building as the way to win.
Long term, I hope it goes more academic style.
So, how about the TOs rate the 'list' according to current 'meta' rankings as compiled by the scholarly competitive scene champs, cus - respect - there are some very smart, studious, serious people playing 40k, this is true and they would have the talent to set up such editorial review boardswith standard handicap ratings (I think that the ITC almost has something like this) and then, well, if you being super-beat-stick list to a tourney, and smash a less optimized list, then win points are low, and loss losses are nil. Now, there is a different sweet-spot, closer to the balanced in a different sort of way.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/16 19:46:43
. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:40:49
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
LunarSol wrote: auticus wrote:
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.
There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.
Furthermore, the fact that 40k requires so much time/money investment in preparing models for tabletop-readiness means an official, seasonal competitive rotation like MtG's is likely out of the question.
But the thing is, the competitive 40k meta draws from such a limited selection of units that it already might as well be a limited, seasonal format like Mtg Standard. There is actually a fairly decent representation of different factions in the current 40k meta, just not a great representation of all units of every faction. Only a fraction of total units per faction are competitively viable, but MtG Standard is effectively the same thing.
MtG just made it official.
I suspect the biggest limiting factor in having great unit representation for the entire catalog is that it is simply not cost effective for GW to spend man-hours balancing all of those units.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/16 19:45:15
--- |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:45:37
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks
|
Horst wrote:Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no " CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
Above, I address this.
My point is not that there is X list,
but that it is all about lists
(deck building, in more famiilar terms)
to begin with...
|
. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:46:43
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
jeff white wrote: Horst wrote:Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no " CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
Above, I address this.
My point is not that there is X list,
but that it is all about lists
(deck building, in more famiilar terms)
to begin with...
And honestly, that's just the way competitive players like it. So.... yea trying to "fix" that is going to be poorly received.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:48:01
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks
|
Horst wrote: jeff white wrote:
...afraid that someone might remove
the "super-combo CP farming win-button"( tm) from the game mechanics.
Tell me, which list is that? Because your comment just comes off to me as ignorant of the tournament scene. What list exactly is it that is a "super-combo CP farming win-button"?
Name me one list that is absolutely unstoppable in 8th edition, and I'll shut up and accept that you are right. Every list out there has a counter, no list is a "win button".
Some lists are "lose buttons" though, where no matter how you play them you're gonna get stomped. That's to be expected though. There are a solid 10-15 "good" style lists that will do well at any given tournament though, and in each of those there are variations you can customize to base on your playstyle. Honestly your comments come off as someone who plays their fluffy space marines, and doesn't want to be bothered to change up what he brings against newer style 8th edition lists to win.
I think that you missed the point, but I tried to address it above. Automatically Appended Next Post: Horst wrote: jeff white wrote: Horst wrote:Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no " CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
Above, I address this.
My point is not that there is X list,
but that it is all about lists
(deck building, in more famiilar terms)
to begin with...
And honestly, that's just the way competitive players like it. So.... yea trying to "fix" that is going to be poorly received.
Why do you insist that 40k tournaments must treat the game like a CCG?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/16 19:49:25
. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:50:19
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
Your point is that you don't like "list building"... I get that.
Well, that's a very large part of competitive 40k. If you don't like it, well... play something else? Or only play with like-minded players?
Some people in this thread are acting like it's "infecting" casual players at their LGS... it's because most people LIKE the ability to try to tweak their lists to eke out more power.
Why do I insist people treat competitive 40k like a CCG? I don't insist on that (well I do, because I want it to be that way, because I enjoy that aspect).... that's just the way it is, and I (like most others who play competitive 40k) enjoy it like that.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/16 19:51:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:52:14
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks
|
Horst wrote: jeff white wrote: Horst wrote:Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no " CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
Above, I address this.
My point is not that there is X list,
but that it is all about lists
(deck building, in more famiilar terms)
to begin with...
And honestly, that's just the way competitive players like it. So.... yea trying to "fix" that is going to be poorly received.
Have you ever played an RPGA event say, D&D, at a large venue, with really good players - really good?
I have won awards, people do actually 'win' things, prizes and so on, for playing even these comparatively informally structured games well.
Why couldn't (or shouldn't) so called "competitive" 40k be more like that?
|
. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/07/16 19:54:52
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
No, I haven't. I have played competitive 40k though, in 5th edition, 6th edition, and 8th edition. It's been about "list building" for each of those editions. As long as I've known it, it's been this way. Why would it be changed, why SHOULD it be changed, when it's obviously got a large (and growing) fan base? 40k tournaments are exploding in popularity, they're everywhere. It confirms that people want this style.
List building isn't everything... but it is a large part of this game, and the evidence shows most people who participate in competitive 40k enjoy it.
|
|
 |
 |
|