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.

A lot of the problem is just development lag. Anything tied to physical medium is particularly problematic as its got to be designed sometimes a year out in an environment that can only guess at what environment it will actually release to. Digital is a lot more fluid, but still pretty heavily constrained by time.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The AOS lead is Ben Johnson. Jervis may sit over it all but Ben Johnson last I checked was the "lead" developer. Sam Pearson (bottle) is another active developer. Both were big into the tournament scene. The rules testers are a pool of tournament players in the UK involving guys like Ben Curry, and the folks that wrote the SCGT comp that turned into official points in 2016.

I'm not sure who the other devs are. However the AOS team and testers are primarily hardcore tournament guys.

So, the guy at the top - the guy who has written articles about how competitive gamers are bad for the hobby and how you don't need points - doesn't have any influence over the game? And I know bottle went to tournaments, but he wasn't (primarily) a competitive player. If you go back and read his posts here, and look at his accomplishments as a designer - heck, if you listen to interviews with him or go to his Twitter page, he's not a competitive player.

Before he was a gw designer and was just Bottle, he and I talked about competitive players and he struck me as someone that, while not an uber espn competitive player, was still very very interested in min/max tourney play and coming up with the uber combos as that was fun.

I would say that the AOS design team minus Jervis are very much creating a game whose primary function is tournament play and the rest is being bolted on to appease everyone else.

 auticus wrote:

Before he was a gw designer and was just Bottle, he and I talked about competitive players and he struck me as someone that, while not an uber espn competitive player, was still very very interested in min/max tourney play and coming up with the uber combos as that was fun.

If I remember correctly, he talked about going to a tournament with a free guild army that was heavily converted and beautifully painted - what kind of competitive player goes to a tournament with an old, barely supported army that doesn't even have a battletome? I mean, I don't want to speak for him, but his interview on Stormcast had him talking about units that he named and had backstories for, that actually died in battle. And if you look at Hinterlands and Warcry, those are first and foremost narrative by a country mile. Heck, Warcry seems to have more Open Play content than Matched Play.

I would say that the AOS design team minus Jervis are very much creating a game whose primary function is tournament play and the rest is being bolted on to appease everyone else.

I could see how you would think that, if you never read any of the rules they wrote, listened to any of the podcasts, or read any of the White Dwarf articles and battle reports. The way these guys talk about Age of Sigmar is not from the perspective of a competitive player. Even when actually talking about competitive play. Like, here's what the GHB19 says for Matched Play:

GHB19 wrote:People play Warhammer Age of Sigmar for all kinds of reasons. Many want to play games that test their skill as the commander of an army, in as evenly balanced a competition as possible. If the thought of games like this appeals to you, then read through the matched play rules detailed on the following pages to learn more.

Even when talking about matched play, they still describe it in a narrative way as players being "the commander of an army". Competitive players would never talk this way. And doesn't it read a bit like a begrudging admission? Here's matched play, if you like that sort of thing. Lots of people do, I guess. Now here's how they describe Open Play, probably the most offensive idea in existence to competitive players:

GHB19 wrote:The best ideas are usually the simplest, and open play games of Warhammer Age of Sigmar epitomizes this philosophy. Open play is a style of gaming that allows you to take to the battlefield with any army, made up of any Citadel Miniatures from your collection - with no restrictions. It's as straightforward as wargaming gets.

I mean, they flat out say that AoS open play epitomizes the philosophy that the best ideas are usually the simplest. And just to drive the point home, here's Narrative Play:

GHB19 wrote:With a cast of indomitable heroes and fearsome villains, plots of conquest, zealous loyalty and ruthless betrayal, and a near-endless array of spectacular locations, Warhammer Age of Sigmar is replete with legendary stories. Narrative play is all about re-enacting these epic tales on your own battlefield.

Holy gak, I'm sold. That's exciting as feth!

And I think you are greatly underplaying how important Jervis is to the AoS team. Every interview, these guys are in awe of Jervis. He's the keeper of the big rule book that they all reference when writing rules. Saying everybody is competitive except Jervis is like saying that God's word is irrelevant to the sermons of the preachers.

The fact that GW's marketing department hypes up open play as a way to sell the new space marine kit to tyranid players does not change the fact that it's a ing stupid idea from a game design point of view.

I mean Ben Johnson is a pretty wel-known tournament player. Don't know about the other guys, or what his specific role on the team is, but he's one I am absolutely certain is a competitive player. He just also happens to not be the type of player who ONLY gives a feth about competitive play and is equally happy to throw down a bunch of models in an Open Play scenario or go all out naming models in a narrative campaign without using Matched Play rules at all.

You know, the ideal kind of competitive player instead of the type who only has one mode of play and can't ever deviate or even fathom not using points/matched play. The sort who knows when to bring out the facebusting GT-level list and when to bring something for fun and make suboptimal but cinematic choices during the game because winning isn't their only concern.

Convenient how the ideal competitive player is defined by how they do things other than competitive play, while nobody ever complains about how the ideal narrative player also plays in hardcore competitive tournaments and narrative-only players are somehow inferior.

I don't pay much attention to what they say in podcasts. I pay attention to their product. Their podcasts are marketing speak. Marketing speak does not reveal the truth of the person behind the speak. It is something that they say as a mouthpiece for the company that they work for. Their product and how they write rules often goes against what they say in podcasts and in interviews.

Yes Bottle wrote a narrative ruleset, primarily as a way to signal to GW that he wanted to write rules for them. His work was basically an early access app that he then used in conjunction with getting to know the devs to get a job there. He did a great job. His Hinterlands rules were ace, and I find them much more to my liking than his work in Warcry which I know was watered down by GW to appeal to more people. I would love to see a game where he was not restrained by GW.

We also went round and round on the subject of narrative vs competitive and he was of the mindset that the two weren't mutually exclusive and you could both love min/maxing and love narrative and he loved tournament play.

He also discussed how a lot of his collection didn't get much use because they weren't as optimal with the SCGT points but that that was part of the hobby and that he felt GW would make it so everything was viable.

Whatever we want to draw from that becomes personal conjecture.

I do agree Ben and Bottle both have shown that they can be both powergamers and narrative fluff players that will build a force on its visuals and story presence over its mathematical optimization, which is good. Most people cannot do both, they are one or the other.

Breng77 wrote:


TLOS is an abomination that made the game worse.

TLOS has been a thing since (at least) 2nd ed 40k. I'm not sure how you can think something that has been in the game for the last 25 years made the game worse. Or do you pine for the days of RT? Which I'm sure also used TLOS and exactly the same language that is in the 2nd ed rulebook.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


TLOS is an abomination that made the game worse.

TLOS has been a thing since (at least) 2nd ed 40k. I'm not sure how you can think something that has been in the game for the last 25 years made the game worse. Or do you pine for the days of RT? Which I'm sure also used TLOS and exactly the same language that is in the 2nd ed rulebook.

I pine for the days of not having this horsegak where if you can see a tiny portion of a model sticking out from a wall, it's like the wall isn't even there and it provides absolutely zero benefit.

GW should have long ago gone to measure base to base, with models having "height" that indicated if they were blocked by something (e.g. a human sized model might be blocked by a high wall, but an ogor sized model would not). Warmahordes had this perfect IMHO, and it left zero ambiguity. Plus it differentiated between soft cover and hard cover so had much more tactical flexibility.

A lot of people miss the LoS abstraction from 4th edition. Those people are unfortunately off base.

Even though its come to be conventional, I'm nevertheless shocked at how rapidly people in the W40K community forget the past.

 Peregrine wrote:
The fact that GW's marketing department hypes up open play as a way to sell the new space marine kit to tyranid players does not change the fact that it's a ing stupid idea from a game design point of view.

Signature worthy statement there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


TLOS is an abomination that made the game worse.

TLOS has been a thing since (at least) 2nd ed 40k. I'm not sure how you can think something that has been in the game for the last 25 years made the game worse. Or do you pine for the days of RT? Which I'm sure also used TLOS and exactly the same language that is in the 2nd ed rulebook.

I pine for the days of not having this horsegak where if you can see a tiny portion of a model sticking out from a wall, it's like the wall isn't even there and it provides absolutely zero benefit.

GW should have long ago gone to measure base to base, with models having "height" that indicated if they were blocked by something (e.g. a human sized model might be blocked by a high wall, but an ogor sized model would not). Warmahordes had this perfect IMHO, and it left zero ambiguity. Plus it differentiated between soft cover and hard cover so had much more tactical flexibility.

Again, if you can see a wingtip, you might hit the tip of the wing.
Not enough to do 'damage'...
If a dude is moved into cover, and the model could adopt a different posture, and the player states that the model(s) in question is(are) in cover, then it is in cover even if you see the wingtip.
Or....
Sort it out with a sense of realism and with a running 'forged' narrative -
"My marines advance into cover behind the wall."
"I can see that one marine's bolter barrel."
"Are you going to dedicate that squad to firing at that marines bolter tip?"
"No."
"OK, then what do you want to shoot at?"
Or...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I don't pay much attention to what they say in podcasts. I pay attention to their product. Their podcasts are marketing speak. Marketing speak does not reveal the truth of the person behind the speak. It is something that they say as a mouthpiece for the company that they work for. Their product and how they write rules often goes against what they say in podcasts and in interviews.

Yes Bottle wrote a narrative ruleset, primarily as a way to signal to GW that he wanted to write rules for them. His work was basically an early access app that he then used in conjunction with getting to know the devs to get a job there. He did a great job. His Hinterlands rules were ace, and I find them much more to my liking than his work in Warcry which I know was watered down by GW to appeal to more people. I would love to see a game where he was not restrained by GW.

We also went round and round on the subject of narrative vs competitive and he was of the mindset that the two weren't mutually exclusive and you could both love min/maxing and love narrative and he loved tournament play.

He also discussed how a lot of his collection didn't get much use because they weren't as optimal with the SCGT points but that that was part of the hobby and that he felt GW would make it so everything was viable.

Whatever we want to draw from that becomes personal conjecture.

I do agree Ben and Bottle both have shown that they can be both powergamers and narrative fluff players that will build a force on its visuals and story presence over its mathematical optimization, which is good. Most people cannot do both, they are one or the other.

I like a stronger integration but admire the zeal nonetheless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The AOS lead is Ben Johnson. Jervis may sit over it all but Ben Johnson last I checked was the "lead" developer. Sam Pearson (bottle) is another active developer. Both were big into the tournament scene. The rules testers are a pool of tournament players in the UK involving guys like Ben Curry, and the folks that wrote the SCGT comp that turned into official points in 2016.

I'm not sure who the other devs are. However the AOS team and testers are primarily hardcore tournament guys.

So, the guy at the top - the guy who has written articles about how competitive gamers are bad for the hobby and how you don't need points - doesn't have any influence over the game? And I know bottle went to tournaments, but he wasn't (primarily) a competitive player. If you go back and read his posts here, and look at his accomplishments as a designer - heck, if you listen to interviews with him or go to his Twitter page, he's not a competitive player.

Before he was a gw designer and was just Bottle, he and I talked about competitive players and he struck me as someone that, while not an uber espn competitive player, was still very very interested in min/max tourney play and coming up with the uber combos as that was fun.

I would say that the AOS design team minus Jervis are very much creating a game whose primary function is tournament play and the rest is being bolted on to appease everyone else.

This is gold.

A bit more about my perspective on TLOS and whether or not it is game worsening garbage:

that heavily depends on typical terrain you play on. On a planet bowling ball or typical tournament table abstracted terrain interaction rules a'la 4th ed or Warmahordes can indeed work better than TLOS, because TLOS is an overkill in those cases, as those are fundamentally 2D games played with 3D tokens. But as soon as you want to play 40K on fully 3D dioramas TLOS with inclusion of area terrain obscuration is actually the most clean way of implementing LOS resolution and there is nothing else that can work as well. Old editions (except 4th) could accomodate dioramas, BRB 8th cannot, 8th with Cities of death can, Apoc cannot.

Infinity cylindrical model space based on size stat works fine in Infinity because a) it's a skirmish with so low model count that substituting actual model for it's envelope is not cumbersome and b) nearly all models are humanoid and come in just few sizes. But in 40K models based on the same base size can be drastically different in shape/size and non-based vechicles exist so again, TLOS paired with common sense is the most clean approach to LOS resolution. But the amount of common sense varied a lot from edition to edition and use of laser pointers is considered too much hustle for many.

And I simply must: "playing on Necromunda levels of terrain density" does not read as "playing on content of original Necromunda box". But apparently reading comprehension is hard for some people. GW now produces two modular terrain systems that can easily accommodate for very complex and very crowded tables - and many, many players do own such bought or scratch built magnificent tables in their garages or dedicated playrooms and need rulesets that can easily and intuitively provide ways of interacting with those. 2nd ed provided those but even in 8th ed Cities of death obscuration and height advantage rules provide those. Highly abstracted LOS rules do not.

LOS is tricky even in games built around 1 model attacking another. It gets really messy when you abstract it to groups attacking other groups. The focus on area terrain generally works better and I overall rather like how the cover mod works mechanically (models out of cover tend to die first). I generally don't like TLOS, but its not tremendously important to a game as abstracted as 40k. I think it demands larger terrain with either no or few holes in it, but its a functional way to get the job done. The primary issue is just that terrain people (including GW) intend to have block LOS is far too often not created tall or wide enough to actually obscure targets the size of 40k units or vehicles.

nou wrote:
A bit more about my perspective on TLOS and whether or not it is game worsening garbage:

that heavily depends on typical terrain you play on. On a planet bowling ball or typical tournament table abstracted terrain interaction rules a'la 4th ed or Warmahordes can indeed work better than TLOS, because TLOS is an overkill in those cases, as those are fundamentally 2D games played with 3D tokens. But as soon as you want to play 40K on fully 3D dioramas TLOS with inclusion of area terrain obscuration is actually the most clean way of implementing LOS resolution and there is nothing else that can work as well. Old editions (except 4th) could accomodate dioramas, BRB 8th cannot, 8th with Cities of death can, Apoc cannot.

Infinity cylindrical model space based on size stat works fine in Infinity because a) it's a skirmish with so low model count that substituting actual model for it's envelope is not cumbersome and b) nearly all models are humanoid and come in just few sizes. But in 40K models based on the same base size can be drastically different in shape/size and non-based vechicles exist so again, TLOS paired with common sense is the most clean approach to LOS resolution. But the amount of common sense varied a lot from edition to edition and use of laser pointers is considered too much hustle for many.

And I simply must: "playing on Necromunda levels of terrain density" does not read as "playing on content of original Necromunda box". But apparently reading comprehension is hard for some people. GW now produces two modular terrain systems that can easily accommodate for very complex and very crowded tables - and many, many players do own such bought or scratch built magnificent tables in their garages or dedicated playrooms and need rulesets that can easily and intuitively provide ways of interacting with those. 2nd ed provided those but even in 8th ed Cities of death obscuration and height advantage rules provide those. Highly abstracted LOS rules do not.

Though we are diverging a bit from the OE topic. You bring up a lot of points.. but cylindrical LOS abstraction is not that great of an abstraction as you portray. It does incorporate any level of terrain intricacy as you need. Its in the basic WMH rule book.. Page 38, LOS

A wall or structure will not block line of sight if it is less than 1.75", 1.75-2.25" block LOS to small bases, 2.25-2.75 block LOS small and medium bases2.75+ will block all but HUGE (gw superheavies,knight titans). That's very fast. No matter what the terrain is made of an intervening barrier will block LOS based on the above.

Next, LOS based on different levels of terrain. You draw LOS from the top edge of the "cylinder" closest to the target to the top edge of the "cylinder" of the target closest to the shooter. Again, it is fast, it is easy, it leaves no room for argument. It is straight forward. Also WMH has some pretty crazy models that have all sorts of gak sticking out at odd places.

As far as cover, that can get a little more complicated but again, the "Volumetric" system of LOS is fast, simple, and clear based on model base size. GW has never done it that way because it likes to play fast and free with base sizes in a totally nonsensical way. It even covers "looking over" other models in regards to shooting through models giving cover/blocking shot, etc.

The volumetric system works with as complex of terrain as you want. It covers elevation, elevation vs elevation, it covers models of different sizes, etc. I am hard pressed to see how it doesn't work with complex terrain as in essence you are using the volume of the base as the method of determining TLOS if you will. I recall TLOS in 40K being abused by placing all the models laying down and similar BS.

A nice hard firm rules set like volumetric LOS (VLOS?) works a lot better. As for small details such as cracks or whatever, it can be assumed the models are not exposing themselves in an undue fashion.

This makes terrain awesome, when you have hard rules that can adapt to any terrain you can come up with things become a lot more fun.

 meatybtz wrote:

nou wrote:
A bit more about my perspective on TLOS and whether or not it is game worsening garbage:

that heavily depends on typical terrain you play on. On a planet bowling ball or typical tournament table abstracted terrain interaction rules a'la 4th ed or Warmahordes can indeed work better than TLOS, because TLOS is an overkill in those cases, as those are fundamentally 2D games played with 3D tokens. But as soon as you want to play 40K on fully 3D dioramas TLOS with inclusion of area terrain obscuration is actually the most clean way of implementing LOS resolution and there is nothing else that can work as well. Old editions (except 4th) could accomodate dioramas, BRB 8th cannot, 8th with Cities of death can, Apoc cannot.

Infinity cylindrical model space based on size stat works fine in Infinity because a) it's a skirmish with so low model count that substituting actual model for it's envelope is not cumbersome and b) nearly all models are humanoid and come in just few sizes. But in 40K models based on the same base size can be drastically different in shape/size and non-based vechicles exist so again, TLOS paired with common sense is the most clean approach to LOS resolution. But the amount of common sense varied a lot from edition to edition and use of laser pointers is considered too much hustle for many.

And I simply must: "playing on Necromunda levels of terrain density" does not read as "playing on content of original Necromunda box". But apparently reading comprehension is hard for some people. GW now produces two modular terrain systems that can easily accommodate for very complex and very crowded tables - and many, many players do own such bought or scratch built magnificent tables in their garages or dedicated playrooms and need rulesets that can easily and intuitively provide ways of interacting with those. 2nd ed provided those but even in 8th ed Cities of death obscuration and height advantage rules provide those. Highly abstracted LOS rules do not.

Though we are diverging a bit from the OE topic. You bring up a lot of points.. but cylindrical LOS abstraction is not that great of an abstraction as you portray. It does incorporate any level of terrain intricacy as you need. Its in the basic WMH rule book.. Page 38, LOS

A wall or structure will not block line of sight if it is less than 1.75", 1.75-2.25" block LOS to small bases, 2.25-2.75 block LOS small and medium bases2.75+ will block all but HUGE (gw superheavies,knight titans). That's very fast. No matter what the terrain is made of an intervening barrier will block LOS based on the above.

Next, LOS based on different levels of terrain. You draw LOS from the top edge of the "cylinder" closest to the target to the top edge of the "cylinder" of the target closest to the shooter. Again, it is fast, it is easy, it leaves no room for argument. It is straight forward. Also WMH has some pretty crazy models that have all sorts of gak sticking out at odd places.

As far as cover, that can get a little more complicated but again, the "Volumetric" system of LOS is fast, simple, and clear based on model base size. GW has never done it that way because it likes to play fast and free with base sizes in a totally nonsensical way. It even covers "looking over" other models in regards to shooting through models giving cover/blocking shot, etc.

The volumetric system works with as complex of terrain as you want. It covers elevation, elevation vs elevation, it covers models of different sizes, etc. I am hard pressed to see how it doesn't work with complex terrain as in essence you are using the volume of the base as the method of determining TLOS if you will. I recall TLOS in 40K being abused by placing all the models laying down and similar BS.

A nice hard firm rules set like volumetric LOS (VLOS?) works a lot better. As for small details such as cracks or whatever, it can be assumed the models are not exposing themselves in an undue fashion.

This makes terrain awesome, when you have hard rules that can adapt to any terrain you can come up with things become a lot more fun.

Agreed on the part that VLOS works with any terrain - that is how Infinity does it. Where it fails with GW compared to TLOS is huge model variety - you can have tall Eldar Wraithguard or Primaris Marines on the same base sizes as crouchy GSC models and low and sleek vehicles on the same bases as AdMech Dragoons or baseless/flying bases vehicles of all shapes and sizes. You would have to introduce huge number of height classes for each base size at which point it is just more straightforward to play with TLOS. But of course, at the cost of arguments between more stubborn people. Personally I never had a problem with TLOS arguments, but I don't mind using laser pointers (laser levels to be exact, that produce a line instead of a dot) and tabletop periscopes and immersion is more important for me than an occasional LOS checking.

Edit: to emphasize - for me TLOS work better for cinematic immersion but I do unterstand why it can be perceived as a lesser way in the eyes of more competitively focussed players. Do read this post as a "not everything that makes game better for tournaments improves the game for narrative players and vice versa".

nou wrote:
You would have to introduce huge number of height classes for each base size at which point it is just more straightforward to play with TLOS.

You really don't. Is a primaris marine taller than a guardsman? Sure. Does that extra height make any meaningful gameplay difference? No. Considering them to be the same height works just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
immersion is more important for me than an occasional LOS checking.

Then why do you use TLOS, where a model built in a crouching pose is unable to stand up and shoot over a low wall?

Personally, I'm fond of a height stat in inches for models. Models never conform to exact heights in inches, but it gets the point across and more importantly, gives people good dimensions to work with when designing or defining terrain. This is 7.3" tall, so it blocks LOS for everything except that height 8 guy there. Being part of the statline makes design space and helps people be aware of how the rule works without needing to know what the table says.

 jeff white wrote:
"I can see that one marine's bolter barrel."
"Are you going to dedicate that squad to firing at that marines bolter tip?"
"No."
"OK, then what do you want to shoot at?"
Or...

So what you're saying is that TLOS works as long as you don't use TLOS and replace it with abstracted LOS rules?

nou wrote:

 meatybtz wrote:

nou wrote:
A bit more about my perspective on TLOS and whether or not it is game worsening garbage:

that heavily depends on typical terrain you play on. On a planet bowling ball or typical tournament table abstracted terrain interaction rules a'la 4th ed or Warmahordes can indeed work better than TLOS, because TLOS is an overkill in those cases, as those are fundamentally 2D games played with 3D tokens. But as soon as you want to play 40K on fully 3D dioramas TLOS with inclusion of area terrain obscuration is actually the most clean way of implementing LOS resolution and there is nothing else that can work as well. Old editions (except 4th) could accomodate dioramas, BRB 8th cannot, 8th with Cities of death can, Apoc cannot.

Infinity cylindrical model space based on size stat works fine in Infinity because a) it's a skirmish with so low model count that substituting actual model for it's envelope is not cumbersome and b) nearly all models are humanoid and come in just few sizes. But in 40K models based on the same base size can be drastically different in shape/size and non-based vechicles exist so again, TLOS paired with common sense is the most clean approach to LOS resolution. But the amount of common sense varied a lot from edition to edition and use of laser pointers is considered too much hustle for many.

And I simply must: "playing on Necromunda levels of terrain density" does not read as "playing on content of original Necromunda box". But apparently reading comprehension is hard for some people. GW now produces two modular terrain systems that can easily accommodate for very complex and very crowded tables - and many, many players do own such bought or scratch built magnificent tables in their garages or dedicated playrooms and need rulesets that can easily and intuitively provide ways of interacting with those. 2nd ed provided those but even in 8th ed Cities of death obscuration and height advantage rules provide those. Highly abstracted LOS rules do not.

Though we are diverging a bit from the OE topic. You bring up a lot of points.. but cylindrical LOS abstraction is not that great of an abstraction as you portray. It does incorporate any level of terrain intricacy as you need. Its in the basic WMH rule book.. Page 38, LOS

A wall or structure will not block line of sight if it is less than 1.75", 1.75-2.25" block LOS to small bases, 2.25-2.75 block LOS small and medium bases2.75+ will block all but HUGE (gw superheavies,knight titans). That's very fast. No matter what the terrain is made of an intervening barrier will block LOS based on the above.

Next, LOS based on different levels of terrain. You draw LOS from the top edge of the "cylinder" closest to the target to the top edge of the "cylinder" of the target closest to the shooter. Again, it is fast, it is easy, it leaves no room for argument. It is straight forward. Also WMH has some pretty crazy models that have all sorts of gak sticking out at odd places.

As far as cover, that can get a little more complicated but again, the "Volumetric" system of LOS is fast, simple, and clear based on model base size. GW has never done it that way because it likes to play fast and free with base sizes in a totally nonsensical way. It even covers "looking over" other models in regards to shooting through models giving cover/blocking shot, etc.

The volumetric system works with as complex of terrain as you want. It covers elevation, elevation vs elevation, it covers models of different sizes, etc. I am hard pressed to see how it doesn't work with complex terrain as in essence you are using the volume of the base as the method of determining TLOS if you will. I recall TLOS in 40K being abused by placing all the models laying down and similar BS.

A nice hard firm rules set like volumetric LOS (VLOS?) works a lot better. As for small details such as cracks or whatever, it can be assumed the models are not exposing themselves in an undue fashion.

This makes terrain awesome, when you have hard rules that can adapt to any terrain you can come up with things become a lot more fun.

Agreed on the part that VLOS works with any terrain - that is how Infinity does it. Where it fails with GW compared to TLOS is huge model variety - you can have tall Eldar Wraithguard or Primaris Marines on the same base sizes as crouchy GSC models and low and sleek vehicles on the same bases as AdMech Dragoons or baseless/flying bases vehicles of all shapes and sizes. You would have to introduce huge number of height classes for each base size at which point it is just more straightforward to play with TLOS. But of course, at the cost of arguments between more stubborn people. Personally I never had a problem with TLOS arguments, but I don't mind using laser pointers (laser levels to be exact, that produce a line instead of a dot) and tabletop periscopes and immersion is more important for me than an occasional LOS checking.

Indeed. I've never really had any issue with TLOS, but I did find VLOS to be hmm, faster? More reliable/consistent? I mentioned the base problem with GW who have always been more "artistic" in their base size choices rather than X-class of model = X sized base and Y-class model = Y sized base. Though that has begun to shift with their moves towards 32mm bases but GW still has a LOT of base sizes and even shapes. That does break VLOS but that would not be a major thing to change if they actually wanted to. They just don't want to be bound to anything like that. They want to play "fast and loose" with things that work better tight and solid. If anything that's been my complaint about much of GWs rules. Not outright bad but.. loose where they should be tight and tight where they should be loose. Arguably abstracting 40k to WMH rules isn't hard (FEX I love the idea of Chaos being a damage type, Fire being another, etc) There is some awesome things that 40K could implement that made armies both "thematic" and "unique" to each other by "damage types" and "resistances/invulns". Though WMH always seems to have been "logical" about it, I'd expect GW to be "silly" about it if they tried. HAHA. Kind of like their bases.. where no one seems to know what is going on or why a size is chosen except.. REASONS!

I always felt that the GW Tournament side of things would really benefit from a "tightening" up of rules and that would result in a more streamlined game without actually 'reducing rules' rather just take out the confusion and lack of focus.. bad wording.. or just nonsensical way in which a rule is implemented. I feel that current edition 2019 AoS seems to feel a lot "tighter" than 40k does in 8th at the moment and having done a few 2019 games of AoS I feel that it indeed works really well in tournament style play. Better than 8th at least.

 meatybtz wrote:

nou wrote:

 meatybtz wrote:

nou wrote:
A bit more about my perspective on TLOS and whether or not it is game worsening garbage:

that heavily depends on typical terrain you play on. On a planet bowling ball or typical tournament table abstracted terrain interaction rules a'la 4th ed or Warmahordes can indeed work better than TLOS, because TLOS is an overkill in those cases, as those are fundamentally 2D games played with 3D tokens. But as soon as you want to play 40K on fully 3D dioramas TLOS with inclusion of area terrain obscuration is actually the most clean way of implementing LOS resolution and there is nothing else that can work as well. Old editions (except 4th) could accomodate dioramas, BRB 8th cannot, 8th with Cities of death can, Apoc cannot.

Infinity cylindrical model space based on size stat works fine in Infinity because a) it's a skirmish with so low model count that substituting actual model for it's envelope is not cumbersome and b) nearly all models are humanoid and come in just few sizes. But in 40K models based on the same base size can be drastically different in shape/size and non-based vechicles exist so again, TLOS paired with common sense is the most clean approach to LOS resolution. But the amount of common sense varied a lot from edition to edition and use of laser pointers is considered too much hustle for many.

And I simply must: "playing on Necromunda levels of terrain density" does not read as "playing on content of original Necromunda box". But apparently reading comprehension is hard for some people. GW now produces two modular terrain systems that can easily accommodate for very complex and very crowded tables - and many, many players do own such bought or scratch built magnificent tables in their garages or dedicated playrooms and need rulesets that can easily and intuitively provide ways of interacting with those. 2nd ed provided those but even in 8th ed Cities of death obscuration and height advantage rules provide those. Highly abstracted LOS rules do not.

Though we are diverging a bit from the OE topic. You bring up a lot of points.. but cylindrical LOS abstraction is not that great of an abstraction as you portray. It does incorporate any level of terrain intricacy as you need. Its in the basic WMH rule book.. Page 38, LOS

A wall or structure will not block line of sight if it is less than 1.75", 1.75-2.25" block LOS to small bases, 2.25-2.75 block LOS small and medium bases2.75+ will block all but HUGE (gw superheavies,knight titans). That's very fast. No matter what the terrain is made of an intervening barrier will block LOS based on the above.

Next, LOS based on different levels of terrain. You draw LOS from the top edge of the "cylinder" closest to the target to the top edge of the "cylinder" of the target closest to the shooter. Again, it is fast, it is easy, it leaves no room for argument. It is straight forward. Also WMH has some pretty crazy models that have all sorts of gak sticking out at odd places.

As far as cover, that can get a little more complicated but again, the "Volumetric" system of LOS is fast, simple, and clear based on model base size. GW has never done it that way because it likes to play fast and free with base sizes in a totally nonsensical way. It even covers "looking over" other models in regards to shooting through models giving cover/blocking shot, etc.

The volumetric system works with as complex of terrain as you want. It covers elevation, elevation vs elevation, it covers models of different sizes, etc. I am hard pressed to see how it doesn't work with complex terrain as in essence you are using the volume of the base as the method of determining TLOS if you will. I recall TLOS in 40K being abused by placing all the models laying down and similar BS.

A nice hard firm rules set like volumetric LOS (VLOS?) works a lot better. As for small details such as cracks or whatever, it can be assumed the models are not exposing themselves in an undue fashion.

This makes terrain awesome, when you have hard rules that can adapt to any terrain you can come up with things become a lot more fun.

Agreed on the part that VLOS works with any terrain - that is how Infinity does it. Where it fails with GW compared to TLOS is huge model variety - you can have tall Eldar Wraithguard or Primaris Marines on the same base sizes as crouchy GSC models and low and sleek vehicles on the same bases as AdMech Dragoons or baseless/flying bases vehicles of all shapes and sizes. You would have to introduce huge number of height classes for each base size at which point it is just more straightforward to play with TLOS. But of course, at the cost of arguments between more stubborn people. Personally I never had a problem with TLOS arguments, but I don't mind using laser pointers (laser levels to be exact, that produce a line instead of a dot) and tabletop periscopes and immersion is more important for me than an occasional LOS checking.

Indeed. I've never really had any issue with TLOS, but I did find VLOS to be hmm, faster? More reliable/consistent? I mentioned the base problem with GW who have always been more "artistic" in their base size choices rather than X-class of model = X sized base and Y-class model = Y sized base. Though that has begun to shift with their moves towards 32mm bases but GW still has a LOT of base sizes and even shapes. That does break VLOS but that would not be a major thing to change if they actually wanted to. They just don't want to be bound to anything like that. They want to play "fast and loose" with things that work better tight and solid. If anything that's been my complaint about much of GWs rules. Not outright bad but.. loose where they should be tight and tight where they should be loose. Arguably abstracting 40k to WMH rules isn't hard (FEX I love the idea of Chaos being a damage type, Fire being another, etc) There is some awesome things that 40K could implement that made armies both "thematic" and "unique" to each other by "damage types" and "resistances/invulns". Though WMH always seems to have been "logical" about it, I'd expect GW to be "silly" about it if they tried. HAHA. Kind of like their bases.. where no one seems to know what is going on or why a size is chosen except.. REASONS!

I always felt that the GW Tournament side of things would really benefit from a "tightening" up of rules and that would result in a more streamlined game without actually 'reducing rules' rather just take out the confusion and lack of focus.. bad wording.. or just nonsensical way in which a rule is implemented. I feel that current edition 2019 AoS seems to feel a lot "tighter" than 40k does in 8th at the moment and having done a few 2019 games of AoS I feel that it indeed works really well in tournament style play. Better than 8th at least.

I have edited in one sentence to my previous post while you were typing, so I'll just repeat - please do read my posts only as "not everything that improves the game for competetive players improves it for the narrative and vice versa". I'm not stating, in any way, that what GW does is gospel. In fact, my group and I have run out of available design space in 3rd-7th iterations of core rules and since we don't like the turn that 8th made we work on our own ruleset. It will have TLOS and other cinematic features as this is the main focus of our playstyle, but there is indeed a lot to improve above what GW delivers.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
If Nu-Apoc is the better game (objectively, not subjectively in the eyes of a few ... every game has somebody who thinks that particular game ever is the bestest), people will gravitate towards it and GW certainly wont mind that the game that finally improves upon 40K after 30 years of non-GW companies producing nothing but pretentious garbage is one of their own.

That's not how gaming works. Inertia is a thing. Apoc has to not just be better. It has to be better enough to justify people switching away from guaranteed games, to a maybe game, and justify its own 100 dollar no models price tag. There is a tipping point where apoc could overtake 40k, but, like, Middle earth SBG is also strictly a superior rules system with flat out the best balance of GW games, and it has never overtaken 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 meatybtz wrote:
I still think GW has been on the support the Tourney train and the "yearly" updates because it makes them gak-tons of money.

Since tournament players have to be the leetest of the leet they as said above, churn and burn. That is any business' dream come true. It means they can nerf and buff and sell product that isn't moving by making it into a must have and those tournament players will gobble it up at ANY price.

This of course makes buying on the secondary market nice because the more they churn the more the value on the secondary market diminishes due to basic rules of supply and demand.

I see the future of 40K being what is currently Apoc. They've been watering down the rules over the years to make it faster and more simple. The goal being to boost the "leet" market. The.. ehem.. short attentionspan Death Match type.

GW has been searching for a way to make gains in those areas and its been hard since wargamming is so niche. They have to alter it to be more "common" compatible.. but also faster.. and also to have "leet" builds that attract the WAC mindset to blow money like it's water.

I still hate 8th. It's utter broken gak breaking rules set down in the RT era because of common sense and the nature of D6 and statistics.

It IS faster. It is "more simple". There are much fewer mechanics and many rules are just duplication that can be removed by making a core rule such as "6+FNP" instead of the flavor texted version same with "death to false emperor" is just "every six to hit in combat gives an additional attack". Orks have that as do other armies but they are fluff named for no reason making the game seem bloated when it isnt.

They have also been moving towards the "card game" kind of play for a while now. Selling cards is great. Esp if they go WoC and pull from MtG and make the cards used in battles of Apoc come from booster packs that have rares, commons, etc and the ultra-rares are the best moves and thus you have to buy tons of boosters to get that ONE card to WAC.

That's money money money to GW.

new Apoc is utter gak. But.. again.. it is a FAST playing game that is simple and straight foward.

I can see 9th being Apoc rule set. They've been trying special rules and trying to break out of D6 for a while now and Apoc fits that bill.

Wargamming to me will always be what is supposed to be.. a complex tactical and strategic game where a single misplay or bad roll can hurt and you have to be smart enough and capable enough to overcome it (mostly you can). I still miss weapon arcs and charge arcs and wheeling and more because you had to THINK ahead, plan, and movement was critical as well as facing (for vehicles).

Point being. I am a dinosaur. My age is long over. Today is MOBA. They've been moving that way for a while. So it will.

I loved BFG, Epic Armageddon (I played epic from when it was called Space Marine till it was shelved).

For the record my start in wargamming wasn't GW... it was FASA's products. So hex bases still have a special place in my heart.

I've done the tourney thing back in the 90s. So I understand WAC and LEET builds as well as broken game mechanics abused.

But remember I played 40k when a single battle took 3 DAYS. HAHA.. and "combat squading" required you to write down orders on a piece of paper and your unit was required to follow those orders till it got back with it's old squad again.
Fun stuff. Also Turn Rate Radius.. accell and decell.

We actually made special templates and tools for TRR and ACC/DEC and it wasn't that hard once you had the tools to simplify it. But boy did you have to think ahead about your vehicles or you'd smack into your own squads or terrain. HAHA.

But yeah. I may often feel superior to the plebeian squeakers but the reality and future (as well as the big money for GW) is Apoc, Tournies, and simplified rules for "everyone" (tm). I realize that my era is over. I am a triple webber side draft guy in the era of advanced computer controlled fuel injection. Injection today is plug and play. A caveman could do it. So many more people are "tuners" when I remember being a "builder".. big cams, nasty exhaust, and hot days at the track trying to fix whatever broke. Just as the era of custom crazy vehicle rules in 40k and deodorant hovercraft is over.. and in a way it's good.

You don't like good games. You like complicated games. They're not the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Except that, at least on the AOS side of things, there are rules designers on the team that were part of fan comp systems for AOS that did a really good job.

So if its true that GW rules authors are really bad at game design, there must be something special about walking through the door of the Ivory Tower that strips them of their mental facilities and renders them inept.

Or ... its intentional imbalance.

They need to get Jay Clare and Adam Troke to write all their rules obviously

nou wrote:
This here is pure heresy in the eyes of the many who worship The Adequately Pointed Gods.

Shrug. When it comes to believing in points, it's often a bit like a religion. You have the zealots and true believers who will never be swayed, and even those who are struggling to hold on to their faith in the 'god of the gaps'. Then there's me, and when it comes to 'faith' in points, I'm a bit of an atheist really.

Da Boss wrote:I think it is a fair point that points will never balance exactly, but they can do a much better job than they do currently.

It's all relative though. It will never actually be 'good enough' for a lot of people, regardless, who will still insist on being critical, come what may. And that will be the vibe that will be transmitted online. The sad truth is that accurate points costs, and even balance is a unicorn. Heck, chess has a something-like-a 60% win rate for white, and that is with identical armies and 'set' lists.

Now. Like I said earlier in my spoiler tags, there are things you can do that help. Sure. Absolutely. The question is are you (or gw) willing to pay the cost that implementing these will require? Bearing in mind as well you also need to maintain the 40k legacy items that currently exist, and allow for future 'waves' to be released, as this is a business, and most of your profits will come from the shiny new stuff, rather than what's already there (the humble tactical marines being a weird exception to this rule!)

It doesn't take long to find complaints towards any of these potential options in other games - google the complaints towards multiple win conditions/caster kill in WMH? Multiple lists? Or would you gut the entire range of 40k and file it down to guardsmen with lasguns, hellguns, flak armour and play it to the scale of infinity? Or do you implement 'formats' and chop up the player base into even smaller groups? For balance, Will you gut options, and streamline/homogenise the game to the point that a lot of the character and options that a lot of people love is removed? Hell, will you include a 'negotiation phase' like Aos where people are instructed to talk it out and game-built collaboratively? I like this myself, but I can't imagine lunarSol and his mates being too pleased!

There are no easy choices. So yes, they could maybe do a much better job depending on your perspective, but would it be worth the cost?

Da Boss wrote:I The biggest problem is the release schedule being one faction at a time in my view, with favourite factions getting several updates before the red headed stepchild factions get one, resulting in factions designed for entirely different paradigms having very limited options to compete. A newbie does not know this and blunders into the problems after spending a large amount of time and money. That is the most compelling reason for balance to

Sounds like an unfortunate convergence of staff turnover (which is ALWAYS going to happen) and the money makers getting more attention. You can't stop the former and you can't blame a business for making a business-focussed decision with regard to the latter.

auticus wrote:I find the "points will never be balanced so thats ok that 40k and AOS are not balanced because its impossible" to be mega cop outs.
It is true, points will never be perfectly balanced.
But they can damn sure well be 1000x better than what they are today, and the fan comps of AOS before it had points were proof of that.

It's not a cop out, it's calling it as it is.

Imean, for example, can you square the circle of, for example, having an exact cost, for, say, a dreadnought with a lascannon, that can both accurately state (to a standard of 95% accuracy) its value on planet bowling ball against an army of light armour, with the exact same value simultaneously accurate for the same dreadnought, with the same lascannon on an 80% forested board, against 300 grots.

If it can be 1000x better than what it is now, then this should be Solvable. and should be solvable, simultaneously, for all units across all situations. And I don't think it is, unless you can have a self correcting algorithm, that can account for a couple of dozen different factors like I said earlier.

But you are essentially correct auticus. There are options. The question is are they worth the price. Regarding the fan comps - I am not too familiar with them. But wasn't aos at the time a much smaller game?

Wayniac wrote:this is what I find so amusing. "It can't be totally balanced, so mediocrity is acceptable" is fething bullgak, plain and simple. That doesn't excuse poor quality because you can't get it to be perfect (which nobody wants). There are tons of smaller companies that manage to run circles around GW's rules with a fraction of the resources.
So why accept a half-assed job?

It's not about 'accepting mediocrity'. It's about accepting these are limited systems, and really, they can only be pushed so far. There is no god In the gaps Wayne.

Those smaller companies don't have the player base for the most part pushing those games to breaking. But let's be fair here. No one expects A ttg to be 'perfect', but when I see people talking about 'good enough' instead it is ultimately so functionally close to 'perfect' it might as well be identical. I mean, warmachine was a reasonably well balanced game, aside from some horrendous flaws. Mk2 cryx. Epic Haley? 'Good enough'? Or if this was gw doing it, would it be screamed at to the moon and back? Same with malifaux and infinity. Or any other game you care to name. Let's also point out these games often get a free pass from those who would criticise gw for doing the exact same thing.Those smaller games 'running rings' around gw also use a lot of the mechanism I outlined earlier, that, while they may help in some ways, create their own host of problems. I mean, can you imagine the hostility that would be generated by the 40k community if gw brought in 'caster-kill' as you see in WMH? Or the requirement for multiple lists? Or fully destroyed the concept of options in favour of 'set' wargear and set squad sizes? Or reduced the scale to a ten-man skirmish between guardsmen? those game are not necessarily 'better' and I say that as a long time player of warmachine, and I also hold infinity to probably be the most technically brilliant wargame out there with the best metals in the industry.

Wayniac wrote:
Part of the issue, in general, is that GW has *made* their game so bloated it's become harder and harder, dare I say nearly impossible, to balance. It's a symptom of their lack of caring for so long (if they even do today) about having a good *game* versus having a lot of good *models* that just so happens to have something resembling a tabletop game along with it to let you do more than have your models sit in a display case. There's no reason for the huge amount of bloat in 40k; it serves no useful purpose and actually hurts more than it helps because of how unstable the game has become, even with a total revamp for 8th edition, as a result. There's what, 25 codexes? Or close to that? And, despite not actually needing all of those documents to play, now over 100 FAQ documents that each and every book needs to fix things that should either be caught in proofreading or caught with even a basic amount of testing beyond "Oh that sounds about right".

Every game gets bloated over time. Happened I never warmachine twice. To be fair, these companies make their money on the 'new waves'. All those books, all those new releases - that's gw living and breathing. These games will always expand and bloat will always happen. And while I don't like it personally, I acknowledge it's gonna be there, come what may.

And the funny thing is some people like that. When you see a dude with a huge belly and unkempt beard, you might very well say 'bloat'. Someone else willing say 'bear'. Gw do care. They just care about other things.

Sqorgar wrote:
If I remember correctly, he talked about going to a tournament with a free guild army that was heavily converted and beautifully painted - what kind of competitive player goes to a tournament with an old, barely supported army that doesn't even have a battletome? I mean, I don't want to speak for him, but his interview on Stormcast had him talking about units that he named and had backstories for, that actually died in battle. And if you look at Hinterlands and Warcry, those are first and foremost narrative by a country mile. Heck, Warcry seems to have more Open Play content than Matched Play.
I could see how you would think that, if you never read any of the rules they wrote, listened to any of the podcasts, or read any of the White Dwarf articles and battle reports. The way these guys talk about Age of Sigmar is not from the perspective of a competitive player.
Competitive players would never talk this way.

With respect Sqorgar, while I am more and more sympathetic towards a lot of what you are looking for, you need to back down here. I've said this to you since you've started posting here, and you are as wrong now as you were then- you are completely out of line when you are talking about 'competitive players' like this and need to back up. Your view is warped and inaccurate and often more than a little bit condescending. And you never seem to want to take on or accept any perspectives or evidence to the contrary. And it does no one any favours, least of all yourself. Why is it so hard to believe someone could want to play tournaments, and still love painting converting and lore? its not zero/sum.xompetitive is a spectrum. And means different things to different people. Some of the best friends, coolest guys and best painters I know are frequent tournament goers. Heck, back when I wasn't a regular goer, I had 350 odd models for warmachine (khador, circle, mercs and retribution) and all armies were 100% painted and based. And me pointing this out to you goes back to when I was playing warmachine too as I have frequently pointed out to you. You have a go at others here in this thread for being toxic, but this view of yours towards competitively is equally toxic.

Deadnight wrote:

Sqorgar wrote:
If I remember correctly, he talked about going to a tournament with a free guild army that was heavily converted and beautifully painted - what kind of competitive player goes to a tournament with an old, barely supported army that doesn't even have a battletome? I mean, I don't want to speak for him, but his interview on Stormcast had him talking about units that he named and had backstories for, that actually died in battle. And if you look at Hinterlands and Warcry, those are first and foremost narrative by a country mile. Heck, Warcry seems to have more Open Play content than Matched Play.
I could see how you would think that, if you never read any of the rules they wrote, listened to any of the podcasts, or read any of the White Dwarf articles and battle reports. The way these guys talk about Age of Sigmar is not from the perspective of a competitive player.
Competitive players would never talk this way.

With respect Sqorgar, while I am more and more sympathetic towards a lot of what you are looking for, you need to back down here. I've said this to you since you've started posting here, and you are as wrong now as you were then- you are completely out of line when you are talking about 'competitive players' like this and need to back up. Your view is warped and inaccurate and often more than a little bit condescending. And you never seem to want to take on or accept any perspectives or evidence to the contrary. And it does no one any favours, least of all yourself. Why is it so hard to believe someone could want to play tournaments, and still love painting converting and lore? its not zero/sum.xompetitive is a spectrum. And means different things to different people. Some of the best friends, coolest guys and best painters I know are frequent tournament goers. Heck, back when I wasn't a regular goer, I had 350 odd models for warmachine (khador, circle, mercs and retribution) and all armies were 100% painted and based. And me pointing this out to you goes back to when I was playing warmachine too as I have frequently pointed out to you. You have a go at others here in this thread for being toxic, but this view of yours towards competitively is equally toxic.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but let's see if you can follow my thought process and see where I'm coming from.

A "competitive player" is not "a player who plays competitive games". They are "a competitive player that plays games". That is, their very character is categorized by being competitive. It is not that they want or need to win games, but that they feel compelled to compete. Like if you are sitting on a toilet in a public bathroom and the guy from the next stall asks how many pieces of toilet paper you used, and you say, I don't know. Maybe like a dozen. And he goes, "Ha! I did it in nine!" That's not a person being competitive. That's a competitive person.

Competition is like exercise. When done right, in an appropriate and healthy way, it can bring out the best in us. By constantly pushing what we think we can do, we end up growing and strengthening our abilities, becoming stronger as a result. But just like exercise, when done wrong, can be extremely unhealthy, so too can competition, when done wrong. That is, unhealthy competition is a thing that exists.

A player who is seeking healthy competition is willing to compromise in order to make the competition as healthy as possible. They know that competition is only healthy when the players have similar goals and similar means. When winning (or losing) is a foregone conclusion, the competition simply rewards or punishes us, without giving us the proper stress needed to push us to the next level of ability. Finding the right level of competition for you and for your opponent (who is really more of a partner in this exercise) is more important than the outcome of the competition. A marathon runner may not get any exercise out of jogging with a 400 pound man who can barely walk, but he can be the perfect partner for that heavy man to find the proper level of exercise so that he can grow stronger. The 400 pound man will likely not ever be a good partner for the marathon runner, but the marathon runner is the best partner for the 400 pound man, if he is supportive and generous with his time. With his help, the 400 pound man won't stay 400 pounds for long.

A competitive player is not looking for healthy competition though. He is just looking for competition, healthy or not. In the right circumstances, he can be part of healthy competition, bringing out the best of those around him, and elevating the game to exercise that builds you mind and body. The problem is, the pool of potential players being so small, and the diversity of players being so large, the opportunities for this healthy competition is slim - and not knowing the difference between healthy and unhealthy competition, they become abusive, neither exercising themselves nor allowing any others around them to exercise.

In the wrong circumstances, these types of players, unable to tell the difference between healthy and unhealthy exercise, turn the game from exercise into abuse. In the example of the marathon runner and the 400 pound man, it would be like them having a race and the marathon runner taking it seriously, yelling back, "get gud, fatty". Perhaps most insultingly, a lot of competitive players think they are marathon runners when, in fact, they are the 400 pound man. They use tricks to give off the appearance of being a marathon runner, but usually the only person they are fooling is themselves.

The ultimate goal for any game and any player, I would say, is to create the good (healthy) competition and do whatever it can to prevent the bad (unhealthy) competition. A competitive player is just one that can't tell the difference, or worse, wants all the rewards of being good without having to do all the work of building the skill necessary.

I've been a marathon running in a room of fat people, and I've been the fat guy in a room of marathon runners - and in no situation has it ever been appreciated to yell "get gud, fatty". I'm very much a believe in healthy competition and I think all participants should do their absolute most to create the healthiest competition possible.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Sqorgar wrote:
If I remember correctly, he talked about going to a tournament with a free guild army that was heavily converted and beautifully painted - what kind of competitive player goes to a tournament with an old, barely supported army that doesn't even have a battletome? I mean, I don't want to speak for him, but his interview on Stormcast had him talking about units that he named and had backstories for, that actually died in battle. And if you look at Hinterlands and Warcry, those are first and foremost narrative by a country mile. Heck, Warcry seems to have more Open Play content than Matched Play.
I could see how you would think that, if you never read any of the rules they wrote, listened to any of the podcasts, or read any of the White Dwarf articles and battle reports. The way these guys talk about Age of Sigmar is not from the perspective of a competitive player.
Competitive players would never talk this way.

With respect Sqorgar, while I am more and more sympathetic towards a lot of what you are looking for, you need to back down here. I've said this to you since you've started posting here, and you are as wrong now as you were then- you are completely out of line when you are talking about 'competitive players' like this and need to back up. Your view is warped and inaccurate and often more than a little bit condescending. And you never seem to want to take on or accept any perspectives or evidence to the contrary. And it does no one any favours, least of all yourself. Why is it so hard to believe someone could want to play tournaments, and still love painting converting and lore? its not zero/sum.xompetitive is a spectrum. And means different things to different people. Some of the best friends, coolest guys and best painters I know are frequent tournament goers. Heck, back when I wasn't a regular goer, I had 350 odd models for warmachine (khador, circle, mercs and retribution) and all armies were 100% painted and based. And me pointing this out to you goes back to when I was playing warmachine too as I have frequently pointed out to you. You have a go at others here in this thread for being toxic, but this view of yours towards competitively is equally toxic.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but let's see if you can follow my thought process and see where I'm coming from.

A "competitive player" is not "a player who plays competitive games". They are "a competitive player that plays games". That is, their very character is categorized by being competitive. It is not that they want or need to win games, but that they feel compelled to compete. Like if you are sitting on a toilet in a public bathroom and the guy from the next stall asks how many pieces of toilet paper you used, and you say, I don't know. Maybe like a dozen. And he goes, "Ha! I did it in nine!" That's not a person being competitive. That's a competitive person.

Competition is like exercise. When done right, in an appropriate and healthy way, it can bring out the best in us. By constantly pushing what we think we can do, we end up growing and strengthening our abilities, becoming stronger as a result. But just like exercise, when done wrong, can be extremely unhealthy, so too can competition, when done wrong. That is, unhealthy competition is a thing that exists.

A player who is seeking healthy competition is willing to compromise in order to make the competition as healthy as possible. They know that competition is only healthy when the players have similar goals and similar means. When winning (or losing) is a foregone conclusion, the competition simply rewards or punishes us, without giving us the proper stress needed to push us to the next level of ability. Finding the right level of competition for you and for your opponent (who is really more of a partner in this exercise) is more important than the outcome of the competition. A marathon runner may not get any exercise out of jogging with a 400 pound man who can barely walk, but he can be the perfect partner for that heavy man to find the proper level of exercise so that he can grow stronger. The 400 pound man will likely not ever be a good partner for the marathon runner, but the marathon runner is the best partner for the 400 pound man, if he is supportive and generous with his time. With his help, the 400 pound man won't stay 400 pounds for long.

A competitive player is not looking for healthy competition though. He is just looking for competition, healthy or not. In the right circumstances, he can be part of healthy competition, bringing out the best of those around him, and elevating the game to exercise that builds you mind and body. The problem is, the pool of potential players being so small, and the diversity of players being so large, the opportunities for this healthy competition is slim - and not knowing the difference between healthy and unhealthy competition, they become abusive, neither exercising themselves nor allowing any others around them to exercise.

In the wrong circumstances, these types of players, unable to tell the difference between healthy and unhealthy exercise, turn the game from exercise into abuse. In the example of the marathon runner and the 400 pound man, it would be like them having a race and the marathon runner taking it seriously, yelling back, "get gud, fatty". Perhaps most insultingly, a lot of competitive players think they are marathon runners when, in fact, they are the 400 pound man. They use tricks to give off the appearance of being a marathon runner, but usually the only person they are fooling is themselves.

The ultimate goal for any game and any player, I would say, is to create the good (healthy) competition and do whatever it can to prevent the bad (unhealthy) competition. A competitive player is just one that can't tell the difference, or worse, wants all the rewards of being good without having to do all the work of building the skill necessary.

I've been a marathon running in a room of fat people, and I've been the fat guy in a room of marathon runners - and in no situation has it ever been appreciated to yell "get gud, fatty". I'm very much a believe in healthy competition and I think all participants should do their absolute most to create the healthiest competition possible.

That is very well put. There is in fact a difference between a healthy attitude and an unhealthy one that while the same two attitudes may on the surface appear to be the same when encountered.. they are in fact different. One being constructive and the other destructive.

We are not a "big" hobby, never will be. We should always seek the healthy side of things for that reason. That doesn't mean "easy" or even sometimes "gentle". I was part of the wargamming school of hard knocks. I learned by being beaten by my betters who didn't hold back on punishing a stupid move.. but they'd always point it out to me, discuss WHY it was foolish, show me alternatives. I would come out of the ass-kicking, better, smarter, and the next go round.. well it was up to me now to apply what I learned.

My best Martial Arts instructors were BRUTAL, but insightful, exacting, but precise in their teaching as well. A "healthy" tournament attitude or player attitude does require "kindness" or a "gentle touch", nut up snowflake, its going to hurt but you will learn best that way can be healthy. In fact you might find you learn better. But if you can't take the heat.. well "unhealthy" does not apply only to the Teacher, it also applies to the Student. A healthy dose of effort, willingness to learn, not taking offense at everything, and having a thick skin (if your Dad didn't tan your hide till you had a thick skin, now is the time to grow one). If one "teacher" style doesn't fit. Find another one. Just realize that the Unhealthy Attitude can be in both camps. Self Analysis is always a good thing.

 Sqorgar wrote:
A "competitive player" is not "a player who plays competitive games". They are "a competitive player that plays games".

That is a nonsense argument. By your standard someone who wins a major tournament is not a "competitive player" if they ever tone down a list to help a newbie or talk about how they enjoy painting. You might as well admit that you're defining "competitive player" as "anyone I don't like" and at least be honest about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

That is a nonsense argument. By your standard someone who wins a major tournament is not a "competitive player" if they ever tone down a list to help a newbie or talk about how they enjoy painting. You might as well admit that you're defining "competitive player" as "anyone I don't like" and at least be honest about it.

I just spent a lot of words to say that I use "competitive player" as shorthand for a player who creates an unhealthy, unfun game environment because they can not tell the difference between good competition and bad competition. I think it is fair to say that winning a tournament does not factor in one way or another. It's an attitude, not an achievement.

But that's an individual. A competitive community as a whole, I think, is largely unhealthy for a game and its players when it becomes a dominant mindset with the only voices being heard. I think this is partly because an echo chamber is created which reinforces a certain Spartan attitude towards competition that can be extremely unhealthy, but because there are a lack of dissenting voices, goes unnoticed.

My primary example of this would be Warmachine. That game is certainly not in a healthy state now, but the writing has been on the wall for years. It's just that nobody acknowledged it because the echo chamber reinforced bad behaviors. For WMH, I blame both the echo chamber and the unhealthy competitive attitude of its players. I'm not sure the two are separate, and may be related. You've got the guy who ruins every game night locally and you've got the community which ruins the game globally, and while they are both driven by a bad competitive mindset, they may be two different issues.

But there's a few other examples of games that have gotten like that. Netrunner is an example of a game that pushed the non-competitive players out (I've seen multiple testimonials to that affect). Some MMOs, like WoW, really went down the "raid" attitude rabbit hole (not sure, but I think WoW may have come back from that). More recently, I think Fortnite is hemorrhaging players for exactly this reason. It's why everyone I know stopped playing (well, it was a combination of the "lol. just build" attitudes, the video game homework, and FOMO fatigue).

I think it is possible that an overly casual echo chamber could be just as bad for the health of a game. Does anybody know of any games that were in an unhealthy state because they were too casual?

 Sqorgar wrote:
I just spent a lot of words to say that I use "competitive player" as shorthand for a player who creates an unhealthy, unfun game environment because they can not tell the difference between good competition and bad competition. I think it is fair to say that winning a tournament does not factor in one way or another. It's an attitude, not an achievement.

Yes, and that's exactly the problem! The vast majority of people would consider the winner of a major tournament to be a competitive player since, you know, they just successfully competed in a major competitive event (and probably one that requires a significant commitment of time and money to attend). Your definition is completely out of line with the one anyone else uses because you need to attach your moral judgement to the term.

But that's an individual. A competitive community as a whole, I think, is largely unhealthy for a game and its players when it becomes a dominant mindset with the only voices being heard. I think this is partly because an echo chamber is created which reinforces a certain Spartan attitude towards competition that can be extremely unhealthy, but because there are a lack of dissenting voices, goes unnoticed.

Just as long as you say the same thing about a "casual" or narrative mindset becoming dominant.

Does anybody know of any games that were in an unhealthy state because they were too casual?

40k and MTG are two obvious examples. The reason it took so long for me to get into 40k was seeing the local players and their obsession with making everyone follow their personal ideas about what is "fluffy" and judging anyone who took "unfluffy" choices because they're the best strategy. Some MTG groups I've seen have been a toxic mess of CAAC behavior, especially in multiplayer games where politics about who is "too competitive" dominate the game and decide who wins. In both of these cases the cliquishness and unwritten rules made the community incredibly unwelcoming to new players, and that can't possibly be good for the game.

 Togusa wrote:
Yesterday afternoon, I brought a list.

2 Captains with Bolters
2 Lieutenants with Bolters and Chainswords
30 Bolter Marines
4 Missile Launchers
4 Lascannons
4 Heavy Bolters
2 Dreadnoughts with assault cannons and stormbotlers
3 Centurions with Hurricane Bolters and Heavy Bolters
1 Land Raider
1 Laser Predator Tank

I ran them at Blood Ravens (Using the IF tactic for them).

The game was fun, enjoyable and excitable! It swung both ways until turn 4 when my opponent, playing ork boyz horde finally got the up on me. End score was 9-6.

Competitives will constantly moan about every model in my list. They'll tell you they suck, they're too many points, they're not enough firepower. But, I've learned that the competitive version of 40K isn't as "wonderful" as they'll have you believe, and playing with these "sucky" units can be loads more fun.

Don't listen to that community. It's not the only way to enjoy this hobby.

See this is it.
I might have taken one fewer captain,
and maybe run with a techmarine instead,
that or a unit of scouts, maybe a skimmer
... but that is the sort of "list" that screams "balance".

I do hate centurions and would personally feel compelled to assassinate them asap.
This already makes me want to play against the army, probably more than once.

This sort of "list" should score pretty high composition points,
add to the sportsmanship score,
and in general reinforce the idea that VPs do not equal win.

Plus, if vehicle rules weren't so ridiculously bad this edition,
the "list" should be pretty hard in the right situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Does anybody know of any games that were in an unhealthy state because they were too casual?

40k and MTG are two obvious examples. The reason it took so long for me to get into 40k was seeing the local players and their obsession with making everyone follow their personal ideas about what is "fluffy" and judging anyone who took "unfluffy" choices because they're the best strategy. Some MTG groups I've seen have been a toxic mess of CAAC behavior, especially in multiplayer games where politics about who is "too competitive" dominate the game and decide who wins. In both of these cases the cliquishness and unwritten rules made the community incredibly unwelcoming to new players, and that can't possibly be good for the game.

Really?
This is what you would call "unhealthy"?
I suppose WAAC = rational self-interest?

Sure, intolerance is, well, intolerable.
But, something tells me that you have struck on something important here.

The crested wave of MtG addicts lurking in the wings,
flooded into 40k out of apparent resentment
(likely due teasing from wargaming nerds likely also to be their older brothers,
and the unhappy looks of the people like myself who had to clean up after them
after they had filled the comic book shop with the smell of old sweat and cat urine
after spending all of 3dollars on a pack of cards,
and littering the shop tables with soda and floors with chip crumbs for 5 hours,
while the Warhammer and RPG set were typically older, better behaved,
and tended to spend more money.)
and since then have been able to correct for the mistakes of those early days
and deliver us into this current age of otherwise untapped potential
to be what it is, now...

A CCG with big cards.

Where you write: "especially in multiplayer games where politics about who is "too competitive" dominate the game and decide who wins. In both of these cases the cliquishness and unwritten rules made the community incredibly unwelcoming to new players, and that can't possibly be good for the game."

Most people have common assumptions about most things realistic, say gravity for example.
If the simulated battleffield retains these assumptions, reinforces them, and indeed reduces much of the complexity
(how many soldiers get thirsty or need to defecate or vomit during turn 2 in a game of 40K? If it were me out there, I probably would...)
but the point here is that it is this shared common sense that makes the game playable and the table inviting. When I started, I played with people who had military experience,
with people who were into guns of all sorts, with actual lawyers... And everyone learned something from each other about how to get things done.
Yeah, this experience and the home rulings may differ from group to group, but if core rules and core assumptions most importantly may stay the same for a while,
then a general mindset emerges, say, as it seems to have now with GW encouragement at the other end of the spectrum.

For instance, I had no trouble going from my relatively isolated little gaming group to GTs - had wonderful games, didn't win too many, but really wasn't there to be number 1, was there to be there...


Now, realism is out the window, as is the common sense that may have made my experiences possible,
but this makes sense for a generation of people who may have never seen actual stars unpolluted by city lights,
or who have since infancy spent most of their time staring at monitor raised in video simulations
wherein all things are made clear and are determined in a strong way inaccessible to reinterpretation.
Developing in this sort of environment,
it is understandable that people might also develop an intolerance for ambiguity,
for the smoke and haze of the smouldering battlefield and the uncertainty that accompanies it...
Sometimes, things aren't as they seem, and don't go as we intend, and indeed, sometimes there is compromise....

This sort of thing goes out the window along with the immersion afforded by the realism
once the hobby becomes a list building exercise with pretty buildings through which to parade said list to reliable victory
(by the gods of math-hammer, let it be so!).

Seriously, why not simply compile a database, compose lists, and compare probabilities.
Then do it again.
Whoever gets highest probabilities to win for three unique "lists" wins Warhammer 40K...!!!

Yeay!
No more trouble with LoS - that must be a good thing.
No more table to feel uninviting - must be a good thing.

May the best deckbuilder win...

See, it seems that what you have struck on is that
40K is not MtG,
and people should please stop evaluating the hobby in similar terms.

You want to build decks to reliably win short games so that you can demonstrate this reliability over the course of an afternoon?
Great.

That is not what Warhammer was all about, any more than it was what D&D or Traveller or Stalking the Night Fantasitc or Champions or Call of Cthulu were all about...
it is however what CCGs seem to be all about, except for where people are dissatisfied with the lack of depth even there, and from which some have apparently run to 40K for some relief
with the result being a tipping point - a saturation point - and the crux of the present thread,
seemingly different language communities
attempting to correlate fundamentally different understandings of the structure of a shared space of action, the 40K game table.

Yeay!
No more trouble with LoS - that must be a good thing.
No more table to feel uninviting - must be a good thing.

May the best deckbuilder win...

See, it seems that what you have struck on is that
40K is not MtG,
and people should please stop evaluating the hobby in similar terms.

You want to build decks to reliably win short games so that you can demonstrate this reliability over the course of an afternoon?
Great.

That is not what Warhammer was all about, any more than it was what D&D or Traveller or Stalking the Night Fantasitc or Champions or Call of Cthulu were all about...
it is however what CCGs seem to be all about, except for where people are dissatisfied with the lack of depth even there, and from which some have apparently run to 40K for some relief
with the result being a tipping point - a saturation point - and the crux of the present thread,
seemingly different language communities
attempting to correlate fundamentally different understandings of the structure of a shared space of action, the 40K game table.

When a random thread on 40k explains language philosophy better and group behaviour then your proffessor.

Have an exalt.

Man, you guys are way off topic. The original question in the OP was why do competitive players hate on casuals? The numerous rants in this thread about how they are playing it wrong have adequately shown reason for that.... because live and let live is not enough for casuals, they must denigrate competitive players themselves. Question answered then. Competitive players hate on casuals because CAAC players are just as toxic as WAAC players.