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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I can’t believe you think these games are zero-sum, winner takes all games.

Then you clearly don't understand what "zero sum game" is. Ambiguity in rules interpretation has nothing to do with the concept.

Your answer would come across as far less arrogant and condescending if you deigned to offer a clarifying example.

How can they be competitive when the most fundamental parts of the game are completely inaccurate?

How can football be competitive when nobody can measure exactly where the ball is, and the game is full of "good enough" calls?

You have referees watching every move in your games of 40K?

Snugiraffe wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I can’t believe you think these games are zero-sum, winner takes all games.

Then you clearly don't understand what "zero sum game" is. Ambiguity in rules interpretation has nothing to do with the concept.

Your answer would come across as far less arrogant and condescending if you deigned to offer a clarifying example.

How can they be competitive when the most fundamental parts of the game are completely inaccurate?

How can football be competitive when nobody can measure exactly where the ball is, and the game is full of "good enough" calls?

You have referees watching every move in your games of 40K?

There should be with the level of cheating that goes on at big tournaments

 Peregrine wrote:

Then you clearly don't understand what "zero sum game" is. Ambiguity in rules interpretation has nothing to do with the concept.

That’s a separate thing. I asked how the games could be competitive if they are largely guesstimates. The games not being zero sum is a different thing - a perception problem. But let me totally share this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking

When individuals think that a situation is zero-sum, they will be more likely to act competitively (or less cooperatively) towards others, because they will see others as a competitive threat. For example, when students think that they are being graded on a curve—a grading scheme that makes the allocation of grades zero-sum—they will be less likely to provide assistance to a peer who is proximate in status to themselves, because that peer's gain could be their own loss.

...

Actually read that whole page. A lot of it may seem particular familiar to you. Hell, you seem to think internet discussions are a zero sum game. That’s not healthy, dude.

How can football be competitive when nobody can measure exactly where the ball is, and the game is full of "good enough" calls?

I don’t know. Let’s ask their FOUR referees...

Snugiraffe wrote:
Your answer would come across as far less arrogant and condescending if you deigned to offer a clarifying example.

You assume that I care at all about not being condescending towards someone who started off with "I feel sorry for you because you don't agree with me". But, since you want a clarifying example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game

40k is indisputably a zero-sum game because all gains for one player come at the expense of the other player. If there are five objectives to claim both players are trying to divide them up in their favor to win the game. For me to claim three of the objectives requires preventing you from claiming more than two of them. At no point is it possible to cooperate and gain more than five objectives worth of value for the two players combined, allowing both players to "win" the game. And it's the same kind of situation at every level of game mechanics. The players are in direct opposition at all times and any time player A has a success it is a loss for player B.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
That’s a separate thing.

So, having failed to back up your claim that 40k is not a zero-sum game you just decided to move the goalposts to something else?

I asked how the games could be competitive if they are largely guesstimates.

And I answered: in the same way that other games are competitive despite having measurement inaccuracies. In a football game if the referee spots the ball at 4th and inches can you say beyond any doubt that the measurement is accurate and that the ball wasn't advanced a few inches farther, giving a first down? Of course not, and football games are full of controversial calls like that. And yet somehow football is a popular and obscenely profitable competitive sport. So why would you make the absurd assumption that the inability to measure with 0.00001mm precision in a tabletop game automatically makes the game non-competitive?

The games not being zero sum is a different thing - a perception problem. But let me totally share this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking

That has nothing to do with what a zero-sum game is. I'm talking about game mechanics, not attitudes towards players enjoying the hobby.

 Peregrine wrote:
The players are in direct opposition at all times and any time player A has a success it is a loss for player B.

That would only be the case if victory points were a limited resource. They aren’t. There’s an infinite amount such that one player getting a VP does not prevent another player from getting a VP. And there are potentially situations that can be both good or both bad for all players. For instance, if there was an objective that gave 1 VP for each model in range. Heat vents erupting, damaging all models, causing potential VPs to be erased for both players. You are competing to have MORE VPs. In a zero-sum game, the end score would be something like 10 to -10. Literally, the scores summed together are zero. Zero Sum. Right there in the name.

I don’t think you even read the Wiki page you linked to... You may play competitively, but with that eye for detail, I wonder how successful you are at it...

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The players are in direct opposition at all times and any time player A has a success it is a loss for player B.

That would only be the case if victory points were a limited resource. They aren’t. There’s an infinite amount such that one player getting a VP does not prevent another player from getting a VP. And there are potentially situations that can be both good or both bad for all players. For instance, if there was an objective that gave 1 VP for each model in range. Heat vents erupting, damaging all models, causing potential VPs to be erased for both players. You are competing to have MORE VPs. In a zero-sum game, the end score would be something like 10 to -10. Literally, the scores summed together are zero. Zero Sum. Right there in the name.

I don’t think you even read the Wiki page you linked to... You may play competitively, but with that eye for detail, I wonder how successful you are at it...

Oh FFS that's absurd nitpicking. The fact that you can come up with a scenario involving a custom objective (invented entirely by you) where the scoring doesn't technically add up to zero doesn't change the general point that 40k is conceptually a zero-sum game where the players are working in direct opposition at all times. Do you actually have an response to the substance of the argument or just nitpicking about whether it fits the strictest dictionary definition of the term?

I mean.... 40k is obviously not zero sum. Play ITC, and both opponents take Recon. Being in a table quarter does not prevent an opponent from also scoring. Or normal 40k, you scoring first strike does not prevent an opponent from scoring first strike.

Not sure what this has to do with competitive 40k though.

 Horst wrote:
I mean.... 40k is obviously not zero sum. Play ITC, and both opponents take Recon. Being in a table quarter does not prevent an opponent from also scoring. Or normal 40k, you scoring first strike does not prevent an opponent from scoring first strike.

But it becomes much more of a zero-sum game when you look at winning the game overall vs. the individual objective. You want to prevent your opponent from taking those table quarters, not merely sit passively and let them have VP. The more you control the game and accumulate VP the less VP they're going to score, because you're killing their units and pushing them out of table quarters. And in the end, regardless of how you get to a final VP total, one player wins and the other player loses. You don't have a situation where both players cooperate to score tons of VP and both win.

Contrast this with a non-zero-sum game like D&D or a cooperative board game, where the players do work together and one player's win is also a win for every other player.

Not sure what this has to do with competitive 40k though.

The point is that there's a fundamental tension between the zero-sum nature of the rules of 40k and the collaborative approach certain players want to take, and this is responsible for a lot of the toxicity in casual/narrative groups. Every part of the actual mechanics of the game puts the players in conflict with each other and requires them to win by making their opponent lose, but certain players want to use lists/strategies/etc that are very bad at winning the game without losing so much that they stop having fun. So you end up with a bunch of cliquish behavior and unwritten rules built up around the game, and anyone who doesn't play the game the "right way" has to immediately be shunned from the group before they can break that delicate balance of unwritten rules.

This fundamental tension doesn't exist in a game like D&D because there's no real incentive to try harder to win than everyone else. So what if you show up with some overpowered god of combat, you're just helping all of the other players win and if the party gets too good at winning the DM will increase the difficulty of the encounters to match the party's power level. Similarly, if the party plays a bunch of weaker characters the DM matches them up against weaker enemies. The fighter doesn't whine that the rogue is overpowered at lockpicking, the fighter celebrates that an obstacle to their collective victory has been removed and readies her sword because there's probably something on the other side that needs killing. And yes, there are still disruptive players who will ruin a game even when all of the mechanics are removing the incentive to do so, but it's mostly limited to a handful of TFGs rather than a large number of decent people who simply have conflicting goals and ideas about what is fun.

The conclusion of all this is that if you're going to talk about how successful casual/narrative communities are and compare them to "toxic" competitive play then you need to look at casual/narrative communities in zero-sum games like 40k or MTG where that tension exists, not at cooperative games like D&D where fundamentally different game concepts make it much easier to have a healthy casual/narrative community.

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh FFS that's absurd nitpicking. The fact that you can come up with a scenario involving a custom objective (invented entirely by you) where the scoring doesn't technically add up to zero doesn't change the general point that 40k is conceptually a zero-sum game where the players are working in direct opposition at all times. Do you actually have an response to the substance of the argument or just nitpicking about whether it fits the strictest dictionary definition of the term?

You fundamentally do not understand what a zero-sum game is. Like, there’s wrong and there’s fething wrong, and you are fething wrong. Like spend thirty seconds and read the Wikipedia article that you, yourself, linked to. You are confusing the victory (a player winning is another player losing) with the game mechanics themselves (which are non-zero-sum due to points not being a limited resource - gaining a point does not mean the other player loses a point).

What makes all of this hilarious is that “zero-sum thinking”, where one thinks things are zero-sum when they aren’t, creating unnecessary hostility and competitiveness, is an actual cognitive bias that exists. People study it. It’s a problem. Hell, it might be THE problem with Teds from Marketing. And you’ve got it, buddy. You might be the biggest Ted from Marketing there is.

Edit: It’s also worth pointing out that playing 40k does not begin and end with the game itself. Being a turd to your fellow players will result in fewer fellow players, ultimately destroying your opportunity to play the game. If you think participating in the community is zero-sum, then heaven help you.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh FFS that's absurd nitpicking. The fact that you can come up with a scenario involving a custom objective (invented entirely by you) where the scoring doesn't technically add up to zero doesn't change the general point that 40k is conceptually a zero-sum game where the players are working in direct opposition at all times. Do you actually have an response to the substance of the argument or just nitpicking about whether it fits the strictest dictionary definition of the term?

You fundamentally do not understand what a zero-sum game is. Like, there’s wrong and there’s fething wrong, and you are fething wrong. Like spend thirty seconds and read the Wikipedia article that you, yourself, linked to. You are confusing the victory (a player winning is another player losing) with the game mechanics themselves (which are non-zero-sum due to points not being a limited resource - gaining a point does not mean the other player loses a point).

What makes all of this hilarious is that “zero-sum thinking”, where one thinks thinks are zero-sum when they aren’t, creating unnecessary hostility and competitiveness, is an actual cognitive bias that exists. People study it. It’s a problem. Hell, it might be THE problem with Teds from Marketing. And you’ve got it, buddy. You might be the biggest Ted from Marketing there is.

So, like I said, just nitpicking that 40k technically has scores of 12-7 instead of +3 - -3 rather than addressing the substance of the argument (that in 40k everything you are trying to do is at the expense of the other player) and how that relates to toxic "casual" and narrative communities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Edit: It’s also worth pointing out that playing 40k does not begin and end with the game itself. Being a turd to your fellow players will result in fewer fellow players, ultimately destroying your opportunity to play the game. If you think participating in the community is zero-sum, then heaven help you.

That also has absolutely nothing to do with the game mechanics. But it says a lot of unfortunate things about you that you equate playing to win within the game mechanics with "being a turd to your fellow players".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: from the point of view of game theory math "score +1 VP" and "score +0.5 VP and your opponent loses 0.5 VP" are identical. Likewise, multiplying all VP numbers by 10 gives you the exact same game. So yes, you are absolutely nitpicking an irrelevant point of how 40k presents its numbers and ignoring the fact that the underlying mechanics are very much a zero-sum game. Every action you take that adds positive value to your side subtracts value from your opponent's side. Kill a unit? Plus value to you, minus value to your opponent. Claim an objective and score VP? Plus value to you, minus value to your opponent. You never have a situation where you're collaborating and adding value to both sides at once*. Contrast this with, say, the prisoner's dilemma scenario, where there are strategies that result in both players winning by working together.

*With the amusing exception of collusion in tournaments, where you might deliberately manipulate the VP scored by each player to improve their overall tournament scores at the expense of some other player. But that's blatant cheating.

 Peregrine wrote:

So, like I said, just nitpicking that 40k technically has scores of 12-7 instead of +3 - -3 rather than addressing the substance of the argument (that in 40k everything you are trying to do is at the expense of the other player) and how that relates to toxic "casual" and narrative communities.

It’s not nitpicking, it is literally the definition. Look, zero-sum game is a game theory thing where they use math to “solve” a game. It’s been a while since college math covered game theory, but it ends up that in a two player game, if both players play optimally, then it should end in a tie (or the first player will win, in a first turn advantage). The fact that you compare scores at the end of the game has nothing to do with it. Zero sum games are mathematical constructs.

A non-zero-sum game is one where the resources are not limited. That is, a player can acquire a point without the other player losing anything. Like sitting in a corner and generating a VP just for existing. The fundamental difference here is that you do not necessarily have to impede the other player’s success in order to win. Imagine a game where two players sit in a corner, accruing VPs. One player acquires 1.5 VPs a turn instead of 1. That player will win, just by virtue of running down the clock. The optimal strategy for that player is to NOT engage the enemy at all, because doing so would remove the natural advantage he is currently enjoying. You win without your opponent losing. You are not taking territory from him, you are generating new territory.

That also has absolutely nothing to do with the game mechanics. But it says a lot of unfortunate things about you that you equate playing to win within the game mechanics with "being a turd to your fellow players".

I equated viewing the game as a zero-sum experience to being a turd. Again, zero-sum means that the scores sum up to zero. In order for you to have fun, your opponent has to not have fun. In order to “win”, the other player must “lose”. But if you view the concept of “winning” not in terms of toy soldiers and more in the social concept of hanging out with friends and having a pleasant time, then winning and losing individual games is less important than the experience of playing them. You “win” by having a good time, and it is non-zero-sum. Everybody can “win” the evening.

The best games I’ve ever played were done with the explicit goal of not winning. I’ve got family and friends who are not particularly good at games (like my kids when they were younger). If I played with the explicit purpose of winning the game, I’d “lose” the evening. Instead, I aim to create the most enjoyment for everybody involved, and if it means playing to lose, I’ll happily do it. If it means handicapping myself to give them a better chance, I’ll do it. My favorite games have been ones where my opponents play the game regularly, but I have a semi-impossible, but creative or fun task to accomplish. They’ll almost certainly win, but I’;l still have fun. For instance, when I used to play Hearts, I always tried to shoot the moon - it was strategically unwise, but when I’d succeed, I’d feel pretty great - but it means I either won or I came in last place. There was no middle ground. And it was great and many fun experiences came from that.

PS: from the point of view of game theory math "score +1 VP" and "score +0.5 VP and your opponent loses 0.5 VP" are identical.

Not really. It’s actually closer to I have 10 bananas and you have 9 apples, then we compare whether I have more fruit than you. The number of bananas I have does not affect the number of apples you have. I can lose a banana and you still have the same number of apples. Zero-sum literally means that if I gain an apple, you lose an apple. If I lose an apple you gain an apple.

Every action you take that adds positive value to your side subtracts value from your opponent's side.

Only in comparison, which is not how zero-sum works. For instance, gaining 1 VP when you are tied is worth more than 1 VP when you are ahead by 10. In fact, gaining a VP when your opponent can not practically catch up is essentially worthless to your opponent (he’s already lost, what does he care if you win by 1 VP or 100 VP?) - but it might have value to you (better tournament ranking, maybe. Adds positive value to you, does not subtract value from you opponent.

Kill a unit? Plus value to you, minus value to your opponent. Claim an objective and score VP? Plus value to you, minus value to your opponent. You never have a situation where you're collaborating and adding value to both sides at once

Non-zero-sum games are not necessarily cooperative. I have to go to AoS for this example, because I don’t play 40k. But let’ssay you kill your opponent’s unit. This benefits you because you get VPs based on enemy units destroyed. However, because the unit was destroyed, your opponent now has enough space to summon a group of skeletons that he otherwise couldn’t have. You both benefited from that action, but to different degrees and to different extents, but you both benefitted. In a zero sum game, all +1s come with a corresponding -1. Here, you got a +3 and he got a +2. The net difference is a +1 in your favor, which is where you are getting confused. But in a zero-sum game, you get a +3, he gets a -3. Always.

 Peregrine wrote:


40k is indisputably a zero-sum game because all gains for one player come at the expense of the other player. If there are five objectives to claim both players are trying to divide them up in their favor to win the game. For me to claim three of the objectives requires preventing you from claiming more than two of them. At no point is it possible to cooperate and gain more than five objectives worth of value for the two players combined, allowing both players to "win" the game. And it's the same kind of situation at every level of game mechanics. The players are in direct opposition at all times and any time player A has a success it is a loss for player B.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
That’s a separate thing.

So, having failed to back up your claim that 40k is not a zero-sum game you just decided to move the goalposts to something else?

I asked how the games could be competitive if they are largely guesstimates.

And I answered: in the same way that other games are competitive despite having measurement inaccuracies. In a football game if the referee spots the ball at 4th and inches can you say beyond any doubt that the measurement is accurate and that the ball wasn't advanced a few inches farther, giving a first down? Of course not, and football games are full of controversial calls like that. And yet somehow football is a popular and obscenely profitable competitive sport. So why would you make the absurd assumption that the inability to measure with 0.00001mm precision in a tabletop game automatically makes the game non-competitive?

The games not being zero sum is a different thing - a perception problem. But let me totally share this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking

That has nothing to do with what a zero-sum game is. I'm talking about game mechanics, not attitudes towards players enjoying the hobby.

See, but you are talking about attitudes.

With a different attitude,
40K is not zero sum any more than capitalism need be zero sum -
Adam Smith certainly didn't think that this competitive though also cooperative system should ever work
without prosocial virtue at its root.
Once this is gone, you might have zero sum,
and replayed systematically for a couple generations or
with enough corruption a couple of years as we have been seeing this past decade,
troubling imbalance results, indeed systemic overshoot reculting in systemic instability,
e.g. something like 60 people control as much wealth today as the lower 50% of the world's population,
this is the degree of imbalance.
.
Metaphor aside, I suppose ultimately,
if left to math-hammering for a while longer,
this is where "competitive"40K will be with their "builds" -
rocking that top 0.1%.

With a different attitude,
everybody wins an afternoon of 40k.

And, sure, drink a few beers.

+1 all around, no?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh FFS that's absurd nitpicking. The fact that you can come up with a scenario involving a custom objective (invented entirely by you) where the scoring doesn't technically add up to zero doesn't change the general point that 40k is conceptually a zero-sum game where the players are working in direct opposition at all times. Do you actually have an response to the substance of the argument or just nitpicking about whether it fits the strictest dictionary definition of the term?

You fundamentally do not understand what a zero-sum game is. Like, there’s wrong and there’s fething wrong, and you are fething wrong. Like spend thirty seconds and read the Wikipedia article that you, yourself, linked to. You are confusing the victory (a player winning is another player losing) with the game mechanics themselves (which are non-zero-sum due to points not being a limited resource - gaining a point does not mean the other player loses a point).

What makes all of this hilarious is that “zero-sum thinking”, where one thinks things are zero-sum when they aren’t, creating unnecessary hostility and competitiveness, is an actual cognitive bias that exists. People study it. It’s a problem. Hell, it might be THE problem with Teds from Marketing. And you’ve got it, buddy. You might be the biggest Ted from Marketing there is.

Edit: It’s also worth pointing out that playing 40k does not begin and end with the game itself. Being a turd to your fellow players will result in fewer fellow players, ultimately destroying your opportunity to play the game. If you think participating in the community is zero-sum, then heaven help you.

I mean we have what seems to be the two Parade exemples of community failure here spouting that their position is superior.

Watch and learn how not to be dakka.
Be Fluid like water, manage your list strength and behaviour accordingly,.

While sqorgar does an excelent job in showing how 40K is non-zero sum game, there is one other, definitive example, that is not subjective and is directly rules math related, so should be understandable by all participants of this discussion:

In most tournaments, losing-winning 19-20 (-0.5 vs +0.5 as some claim) has a different value than losing-winning 0-1 (the same -0.5 vs +0.5 as some claim) and ending a game as close to 20-19 score is beneficial to both players, as VPs are used as a secondary sorting mechanism in case of the tied won-vs-lost primary score.

The more complex (but still not that all complex) version of that reasoning extends to single matches also, but I really don't think that some people in this thread are capable of understanding how a non-constant equilibrium point in a non-zero sum games makes all the mathematical difference between non-zero and zero sum games (even on fething definition level) and how this paragraph is not a "word salad".

maybe but its still win/loss each game, the secondary score keeping is an external requirement for torny purposes rather than part of the game as the winner will most likely be X-0 or X-1

Why would you want a close game? Isn't the point of competition to destroy your opponent and win by as large a margin as possible to ensure you are higher on the leaderboards? If you give them a chance to score more points that is one other adversary that could be potentially above you in later rounds. I can understand if you're playing at home and you want to have a fun casual game with friends or family but when you're at a tournament you should be bringing the most competitive army and strategy you can.

This is the millennial everyone should have fun at tournaments and it should be as close to a tie as possible so me and my opponent both win mindset.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Why would you want a close game? Isn't the point of competition to destroy your opponent and win by as large a margin as possible to ensure you are higher on the leaderboards? If you give them a chance to score more points that is one other adversary that could be potentially above you in later rounds. I can understand if you're playing at home and you want to have a fun casual game with friends or family but when you're at a tournament you should be bringing the most competitive army and strategy you can.

This is the millennial everyone should have fun at tournaments and it should be as close to a tie as possible so me and my opponent both win mindset.

there is a difference between handing out participation trophies and wishing for a competitive match that went down to the wire.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


This is the millennial everyone should have fun at tournaments and it should be as close to a tie as possible so me and my opponent both win mindset.

Unmmm, everyone should have fun at tournaments. If you aren’t going to have fun, why would you bother paying an entry fee and going to a tournament? If I am organizing a tournament and someone is t having fun, I would consider that to be a problem.

Fundamentally, I think this is what a “zero sum” game truly means. It has nothing to do with the details of how you score, but it has to do with the attitude that I’m only having fun if I am actively making the game unfun for my opponent. The more I make it unfun for them, the more fun I have. This sort of attitude is what is truly toxic.

crimsyn wrote:

Fundamentally, I think this is what a “zero sum” game truly means. It has nothing to do with the details of how you score, but it has to do with the attitude that I’m only having fun if I am actively making the game unfun for my opponent. The more I make it unfun for them, the more fun I have. This sort of attitude is what is truly toxic.

Peregrine is talking in terms of pure game mechanics. This is only true of that argument if winning = fun and losing = unfun. Mechanically, a game can be zero-sum without the experience of the game being zero-sum as long as players can find a way for losing = fun.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
maybe but its still win/loss each game, the secondary score keeping is an external requirement for torny purposes rather than part of the game as the winner will most likely be X-0 or X-1

Secondary score keeping is not merely an external requirement but a variable that can be utilized to gain an advantage and therefore a part of the game in tournament context (and actually a crucial one in ETC) and has been discussed on dakka numerous times in contexts of GW/ITC/ETC mission formats. And this discussion is not whether 40K is a win-loss game, which it is, but whether it is a zero sum game, which it isn't. Non-zero sum games can come in many varieties, ranging from competitive to fully co-op. It is only in Peregrine's head that non-zero sum games are always this cooperative CAAC nonsense. Zero sum games however are always strictly competitive and this flawed backwards reasoning leads him to believe that competitveness of a game (defined as having a winner and a loser) defines whether or not a game is or isn't a zero sum game. For the last time - zero sum game is a mathematical definition. Zero sum games can be analysed with a certain mathematical toolset that cannot be to same extent utilized to analyse non-zero sum games.

Sqorgar already presented some facts about why 1VP in 40K is not the same as -0.5 vs 0.5 in zero sum games but just to elaborate a bit on "different value of VP" - in most modern mission formats VPs are capped and connected to turn structure of the game. In other words, there is always a maximum number of VPs to be scored by each player before the game is over. If the advantage of the winning player equals the maximum number of VPs that losing player can still achieve, then 1VP for the winning player means certain victory, while 1VP for the losing player means only closing the gap by 1VP. This asymmetry goes directly against a definition of zero sum game, because this 1VP scored by a losing side does not in any way change the position of winning player - he does not go further from winning a game at all and still needs one, not two VPs to secure victory. So please, no more this false -0.5/+0.5 equivalent nonsense. As I hinted earlier - non-zero sum games have movable equilibrium point whlie zero sum games have static equilibrium point and this property is the key property in their definition. Not the property of having winner or loser.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Why would you want a close game? Isn't the point of competition to destroy your opponent and win by as large a margin as possible to ensure you are higher on the leaderboards? If you give them a chance to score more points that is one other adversary that could be potentially above you in later rounds. I can understand if you're playing at home and you want to have a fun casual game with friends or family but when you're at a tournament you should be bringing the most competitive army and strategy you can.

This is the millennial everyone should have fun at tournaments and it should be as close to a tie as possible so me and my opponent both win mindset.

Reverse your line of thought - despite losing it is in the best interest of the losing side to pump up the partial score to 19-20. And it is commonly a strategic goal in some ETC matchups and players will go for scoring objectives rather than denying objectives.

crimsyn wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:


This is the millennial everyone should have fun at tournaments and it should be as close to a tie as possible so me and my opponent both win mindset.

Unmmm, everyone should have fun at tournaments. If you aren’t going to have fun, why would you bother paying an entry fee and going to a tournament? If I am organizing a tournament and someone is t having fun, I would consider that to be a problem.

Fundamentally, I think this is what a “zero sum” game truly means. It has nothing to do with the details of how you score, but it has to do with the attitude that I’m only having fun if I am actively making the game unfun for my opponent. The more I make it unfun for them, the more fun I have. This sort of attitude is what is truly toxic.

Tournaments are based around getting the best players to compete against each other to see who is better. If I am organizing a tournament I'm celebrating the best players and hoping that the competitions are close because everyone is there to compete and win. How is wanting to bring the best army and destroy everyone I play toxic at a tournament? Should professional athletes tone down their skill so they don't win more games than other teams?

I'm not confusing that with casual games where you are playing with friends or family or having matches at your FLGS to play with people you know. If you think this whole thing is solely around having fun play more narrative games or go with PLs when you build your lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Toxicity comes from either group, competitive or casual, trying to force its ideas and game play styles on other groups. Now for me that appears much more as a problem from the competitive side because certain elements in it are very vocal on the Internet, casual groups tend to be smaller, not cliques but natural a group of friends who play together and know each other socially and through gaming, and how match play seems to becoming the default for pick up games etc.

The reasons I don’t like competitive play are that I like the fluff and back ground and story telling during a game and that appears to not matter at all in a competitive game. And I don’t play war games to get my win fix.

Things like throwing to impose the rule of 3 etc on all play and criticising people for not playing “optimised” lists is what I consider toxic. Forcing things on one group from the other that detract from their enjoyment.

And peregrine you are a classic example of this. You insist on playing your way and making changes to the whole game to play your way better regardless of the impact on casual gaming. You fail to see anyone else’s point of view and have even called people liars when they explain they don’t care about winning or losing. You’ve done it to me.

Any toxicity you have encountered from the casual set is likely as a result of your attitude and behaviour. I certainly have no intention tolerating your outbursts. The rules you talk about casual groups having aren’t rules as much as manners or etiquette. They may be unwritten but aren’t unsaid. Communication is the key. Me and my mates discuss what we want from a given game before hand. That is how we know our unwritten rules. If you joined our group we would do the same with you, but if you didn’t play as we had discussed you wouldn’t be being included for long. That’s not us being toxic that is you not getting the point and being toxic. If everyone else is happy and you aren’t because no one wants to play your unfluffy net lists then the issue is you.

If I went to a tournament and complained that all the armies were wrong and you were doing it all wrong I would be the issue not the competitive players. So I don’t go to tournaments.

The two styles need to be separated as much as possible. An entirely different rules set would be best to me.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Should professional athletes tone down their skill so they don't win more games than other teams?

40k is not a sport and its players are not athletes. 40k is not a "fair" game, and it is not skill based, with the best way to win being to unbalance the game in your favor. The goal of competitive 40k is a gladiatorial match between untrained slaves - with the victor being the guy who brought the lions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
That’s not us being toxic that is you not getting the point and being toxic. If everyone else is happy and you aren’t because no one wants to play your unfluffy net lists then the issue is you.

To quote the tv show Justified, "if you meet an donkey-cave in the morning, then you've met an donkey-cave. But if you are meeting donkey-caves all day, then you're the donkey-cave".

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Should professional athletes tone down their skill so they don't win more games than other teams?

40k is not a sport and its players are not athletes. 40k is not a "fair" game, and it is not skill based, with the best way to win being to unbalance the game in your favor. The goal of competitive 40k is a gladiatorial match between untrained slaves - with the victor being the guy who brought the lions.

I drew the analogy because sports and 40k do have something in common -they are both competitions where one side wins and one side loses. There are a ton of examples in sport where it was not a fair game due to a player having a size or skill advantage over the other side. Does that remove the fun or enjoyment of the game from both sides? Maybe?

There is an entire thread on skill in 40k so I'm not going to discuss that.

I would counter argue that the goal of competitive 40k is to bring the correct pieces to ensure that you have countered all possible scenarios that your opponent may place before you in a game. Fun doesn't trump winning in tournaments.

 Sqorgar wrote:
40k is not a sport and its players are not athletes. 40k is not a "fair" game, and it is not skill based, with the best way to win being to unbalance the game in your favor. The goal of competitive 40k is a gladiatorial match between untrained slaves - with the victor being the guy who brought the lions.

And what makes you think that sports are any different? Do you honestly think that teams aren't trying to skew the game in their favor as much as possible by bringing better players than the opponent?

 Jjohnso11 wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
Should professional athletes tone down their skill so they don't win more games than other teams?

40k is not a sport and its players are not athletes. 40k is not a "fair" game, and it is not skill based, with the best way to win being to unbalance the game in your favor. The goal of competitive 40k is a gladiatorial match between untrained slaves - with the victor being the guy who brought the lions.

I drew the analogy because sports and 40k do have something in common -they are both competitions where one side wins and one side loses. There are a ton of examples in sport where it was not a fair game due to a player having a size or skill advantage over the other side. Does that remove the fun or enjoyment of the game from both sides? Maybe?

There is an entire thread on skill in 40k so I'm not going to discuss that.

I would counter argue that the goal of competitive 40k is to bring the correct pieces to ensure that you have countered all possible scenarios that your opponent may place before you in a game. Fun doesn't trump winning in tournaments.

So you couldn't have a competitive event where the army lists are set by the organizers?

 Sqorgar wrote:
More nitpicking.

So, as I said, all you have is nitpicking about whether 40k's objective scoring technically meets the strictest definition of a zero-sum game, instead of addressing the actual point of the argument: that 40k's mechanics are in direct opposition to the goals of certain "casual" and narrative groups and this produces a lot of toxicity in those groups.

PS: "zero-sum game" and "fun is a zero-sum activity" are not the same thing. Both players can have lots of fun while playing a zero-sum game.

You could (have a set list tournament), but nobody would play in that event. A 40k tournament with set lists would fail because very few people have the inclination to build an entire army for a single tournament.

 Horst wrote:
You could (have a set list tournament), but nobody would play in that event. A 40k tournament with set lists would fail because very few people have the inclination to build an entire army for a single tournament.

Even then, the assumption is the set lists would be perfectly balanced. I suspect the TO would quickly find themselves spending more time trying to fix balance errors in their set lists than GW does trying to fix them across the game.

 Horst wrote:
You could (have a set list tournament), but nobody would play in that event. A 40k tournament with set lists would fail because very few people have the inclination to build an entire army for a single tournament.

I was under the impression that building entire armies for tournaments was what people did if they wanted to compete with the meta. It certainly seems to be the case around where I live. Maybe I'm mistaken? Besides, I'd imagine most people would need to add only one or two units to existing armies.