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.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Voss wrote:

My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.

That's so absolute, I'm not sure any casual games exist. Or have ever existed, or could possibly exist in the future.

Your 'whims of fate' remark is equally weird. It assumes other people can't have a good list that they put their 'heart and soul' into that also happens to treat your army like faceless cannon fodder. Is that fine?

Dictating what kind of army you're opponent can, or should have in order to have a good game, due to the current power level of any one given army is entirely antithetical to a good casual game. It puts players in situations where they either must attempt to deny their opponent playing the army, or list that they want to, not play at all, or change their own list. It creates situations where you have to explicitly outline the rules and conditions, outside of the rules of the game and whereby one player will not, or cannot play the army that they want to if they want to have a good time. If i have to do that, then the rules therefore suck for casual gaming. The rules should be the established baseline for an even casual time, they are not.

Ok, lets try from another angle. What's a game where what you're describing is actually true?
Past the point of Snakes and Ladders or Candyland, I'm not sure I know a game that provides what you want. Or, at least, what you're describing.
Or you're mixing up '40k is not well balanced' for '40k isn't casual,' and those are two very different arguments.

Yes some players do not care if they win, but that's not really an argument against wanting even, fun matches for players regardless of the list they want to bring. That is a mindset that again, exists outside of the rules themselves.

Is this a response to me, or someone else? It seems... unrelated to anything that's been said.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

AKA the perfect GW customer saying FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!1!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

AKA the perfect GW customer saying FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!1!

Well, if you want the game to play narratively there is some requirement for you to play it narratively. Since your usual stance on a unit or list is that it is "trash" I am not surprised that you find the game is not very narrative. Playing a game of 40K is not a passive experience like watching a movie. You need to put a little work in. But hey, I don't work for GW and I missed out on the whole "forge the narrative" meme.

Putting a lot of thought and effort into the lore of a list is not very casual. It actually seems a little intense. Players who emphasize the lore/background of their list and are not willing to compromise that to gain tabletop effectiveness will tend to be unhappy if they also really want to win on 40K Saturday at their FLGS. Now, if they play with like-minded friends they might have a different outcome. Maybe play Narrative missions etc.

So now casual play isn’t casual.

I’ve read everything on Dakka now!

Folks, stop telling other folks how they’re allowed to have fun.

Casual is difficult to talk about because it is a relaxed, if chaotic, way to organise a game.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But any analysis about why something did or did not work within a game will always tend towards areas that are more familiar to competitive players.

It's very difficult to escape the common sense of being efficient in your choices and no matter how casual and relaxed your game is, you can't really have a discussion on tactics without slipping into a competitive area of discussion.

Having said all that, what you can do is organise unique and unusual scenarios with like minded people and then discuss what you did and what was fun about it and what wasn't.

Also army fluff, with an emphasis on lore and maybe bring in painting too.

I just think, most people, are more concerned with mechanics than the more 'artistic' elements, such as writing, story and painting. Because those are much harder to get into and involve a lot of time and effort without immediate feedback.

Whereas rolling dice, looking at stats and maths, and what units are better in a mechanical sense, is just much easier to organise and build structure around.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
I think it boils down to the fact that the "casual" aspect honestly dont exist.
We use the term, but i think what we mean by saying it is "house rules" or preset limitations that has a stronger negative effect then the written rules do.

In a sence you could say that drop-in games in local GW shops, is nothing but an exercise in self controll; bring a good winning force and you will quicky find that not many wants to play agasint you in the spesific setting, cus there is an unspoken house rule at play: this is a reqruitment and testing ground, dont obliterate your opponent.

Everyone will at some point turn to competative gaming when their understanding of the game increases.

Not I, not I said the spider to the fly.

I've been playing since '89. I've attended exactly one tournament. Never played in a store.

The truth is that casual players far, far exceed the number of competitive players, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of players will never join forums or post their stuff on the internet. The vast majority of players play with a handful of friends and don't give a damn what any of us think. They buy the models they like and they play them against other players who have done the same.

I do agree that the definitions of what is casual vs. what is competitive are loose, and discussion does benefit from clarification.

So when I talk about the two, here's what I mean by the terms:

Competitive:
- plays most often against strangers and most often using matched play rules and points
- chooses forces primarily based on effectiveness in the game
- will tweak and tailor a list to increase odds of winning with other factors being secondary concerns
- makes decisions about whether the game state is good or bad based on balance

Casual:
- more likely to play with friends in private homes; more likely to vary from Matched play rules and points
- chooses models they like- sometimes based on what models look like, sometimes based on their background
- grow their list using the same criteria- buying more of the models they like for appearance or story reasons
- makes decisions about whether the game state is good or bad based on model ranges and availability, whether or not the army "feels" like it should according to background

A lot of people fit these two archetypes loosely; defining what camp the outliers fall into is basically a matter of looking at their priorities- a "competitive" player, given a choice between models that perform equally well will choose the ones they like the most based on appearance or background, but effectiveness is the priority. The "Casual" player, given a choice between units that they like equally based on appearance or fluff will often choose the more optimal unit, that just isn't their priority.

Similarly, competitive players DO care about whether armies feel like they should and whether the range of models is diverse... It's just not their priority. Casual players do care about balance, but it isn't their priority.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.

what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

I play causal, narrative, and comp. I have no problem balancing all 3 b.c its not that hard. I honestly don't know anyone that doesn't understand the purpose of each of the 3 and can't balance for each. It seems like a few people in here just doesn't want to play causal.

Speaking of narrative, you can do some really fun stuff with it, saw some narrative players do some really cool stuff, here is an example:

The long term goal was for the Chaos player to steal the Titan in the base, IG won if they could keep them at bay for 5 games. 5k Chaos points in total at the max, and a set amount for IG on each map (Only thing that was a must is Abaddon has to be the WL and not start on game 1)
3 maps: Map 1 open table with bunker type terrain. Map 2 heavy city. Map 3 heavy factory based. Each time Chaos loses they get more points and try again.

1000pts of IG infantry, artillery (basically no tanks) with full side of fortifications (walls, bunkers, trenches only) that are 100% always IG's if any IG is touching them. The Chaos player started with 1k on the table and 1k to DS in via Daemon portals that he can place. The idea was for Chaos to win easily and then more heavy IG units comes in on the City terrain with tanks and such, well.... with some luck roles and unlucky from the Chaos player IG actually won. So the Chaos player said "I think Abaddon is mad and wants to get this over with, i will bring him as well as 3k points. So Now there is only like 500pts of IG left and he is playing 3.5k of his 5k points to just full over run map 1, it was hilarious. Chaos did end up losing in the end b.c on Map 3 IG just had too much and Chaos had loo little left.

Narrative between friends can be super fun and even a bit unbalanced on purpose.

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.

what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.

what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?

1000's of people worldwide enjoying this game is more proof than is needed to show your opinion that it's "trash" is worthless. Your specific gameplay may be terrible, but that goes against most of the population that continues to play 40K.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.

what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?

You didn't make any points. You whined about your army not being good enough. That's not what making a point is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.

what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?

What rules do you think we should be looking at here?
We need rules for:
*Movement, LoS, shooting, melee, wounding, armor saves, morale, assorted weapons, etc. Magic/psychic use depending on the game.
*Rules for army composition - force charts, & some form of pts are generally useful (not always needed though). Otherwise you get Age of Sigmar 1.0 :(
So how do these NOT support narrative? Whatever game we play we need these things.

Turn structure? IGOUGO, alt. activation, various forms of simultanious.... They've all worked. GW stuff just tends to use IGOUGO.

Missions? GWs not doing anything special or groundbreaking here. Just making gak up. Any of us can do that. And probably should be when designing narrative scenarios.

Heck, GWs even supporting Narrative via Crusade content. It might be argued how good that is, & complaints that force specific charts only exist for 9e codices, but it exists/is coming.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.

As usual, missing the forest for the trees.

The rules are resolution methods, they dont define casual, competitive or narrative. Any rules set can be used for narrative gaming. Player attitude defines 'how' you play.

You mistake the fact that 40k is an admittedly poor ruleset and mistake that as 'proof' that jts no good for narrative..I wouldn't expect much more from a black Knight to be fair.

What makes a game narrative is the players imposing their imagination on the outcome of the dice, at its most fundamental level. At more advanced else, players will'gamebuild' and will construct a scenario (lists, mission objectives etc) that will allow a good narrative to play out.

The game as a narrative tool is not sunken cost. That's pure bitterness. The lore that 40k draws from, the epic world building and atmosphere is what makes it a narrative game. If you want it to be.

Sledgehammer wrote:

My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.

I've rarely seen anything in life that didn't have a cost associated, require up front work or some element of compromise. You should try being married! Wargamimg is the junior version. That's the basis of human interaction. If a casual.player can use the rules, the rules can facilitate casual play. pretty sure the board and models dont spontaneously combust if you talk it out with the other guy and play at less than optimum levels. Expecting 'the rules' to adequately cater to rvery variation if player desire is foolish. Rules are not god and you don't owe them blind, unslaving unquestioning adherence and obedience. People can and do talk it out.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.

If you or someone else is dictating terms then you're at fault, not the rules.

Outside a tourney setting, deciding what options, pt lvs, difficulty, scenarios, etc to use in your game? You & your opponent should be doing that.

ccs wrote:
...Outside a tourney setting, deciding what options, pt lvs, difficulty, scenarios, etc to use in your game? You & your opponent should be doing that.

Sure. Should we need to construct our own ban-list of broken units/stratagems/options to have a good game?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

AKA the perfect GW customer saying FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!1!

Well, if you want the game to play narratively there is some requirement for you to play it narratively. Since your usual stance on a unit or list is that it is "trash" I am not surprised that you find the game is not very narrative. Playing a game of 40K is not a passive experience like watching a movie. You need to put a little work in. But hey, I don't work for GW and I missed out on the whole "forge the narrative" meme.

Putting a lot of thought and effort into the lore of a list is not very casual. It actually seems a little intense. Players who emphasize the lore/background of their list and are not willing to compromise that to gain tabletop effectiveness will tend to be unhappy if they also really want to win on 40K Saturday at their FLGS. Now, if they play with like-minded friends they might have a different outcome. Maybe play Narrative missions etc.

My group takes narrative very seriously, but we are extremely casual when we actually play.

Unbalanced scenarios, endless waves, and escape are just some of the completely unfair stuff we play often.
In the lead up to the game; lists, terrain, deployment, objectives will be coordinated. But once the armies hit the table, we are all about watching the craziness unfold.

So it really doesn't matter about balance cuz we can personalize it to our tastes better than GW ever could.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...Outside a tourney setting, deciding what options, pt lvs, difficulty, scenarios, etc to use in your game? You & your opponent should be doing that.

Sure. Should we need to construct our own ban-list of broken units/stratagems/options to have a good game?

If that's what'll improve the games for all involved in your circle give it a try.
You won't be the first or the last group to do so.

LMAO @ all the jadedness in this thread. It's hilarious, some of yall actually seem insulted by the idea that someone prefers playing less competitively? And anyone who doesn't agree gets the "FORGE THE NARRATIVE, GW:s b*tch LOL" card thrown at them? Seriously, how old were we again?

You say there's nothing to discuss if we are not talking competitive tourney meta stuff. I don't agree, there is lots we could talk about. But perhaps the problem indeed lies in the randos and the General Discussion sub in general.

If you haven't noticed, there's a whole new style of 40K gameplay introduced with 9th ed. It's called crusade play, and it laughs at your meta, mate. It doesn't even use points, and it has many things you can abuse for max WAAC, yet don't get abused.

It would be a great idea to introduce a Narrative/Crusade focused subforum on this board. I'd like some area where people could participate in relaxed, mature discussion about narrative gaming without getting "gakked" on by armchair tournament players.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
...Outside a tourney setting, deciding what options, pt lvs, difficulty, scenarios, etc to use in your game? You & your opponent should be doing that.

Sure. Should we need to construct our own ban-list of broken units/stratagems/options to have a good game?

Not necessarily. I mean, if you really, really, really detest something, I think.its fair to say 'I don't want to play against that' and at least some of the time, to expect your desires to be accommodated. It's also to be expected that you give back and play against the thing at least some of the time - same principle as if I do so sthimg nice for my wife, I appreciate it if she returns the gesture.

Regardless, I think.its fair to bring up what you like and what you don't like. If the other person has zero interest in accommodating what's important to you, well, in the real world I'd say she's soon be my ex for a reason...

More than anything though, rather than 'bans', (we're not talking about cancelling things out of the game! Everything g has it's place. Maybe not all the time under every circumstance, but certainly, where its appropriate...) I'd suggest accommodations and different approaches - essentislly 'list-matching' (note, not list tailoring, there is a difference!) rather rather than 'list-building-for-advantage. If you want to bring your souped up tourney list, or a skew list, it's fair game that the other guy knows so he can bring something thay can play on the same level. If he wants to bring his d-list, well, if he's willing to play at your level, be a decent chap and return the gesture.

It's simple, casual play isn't talked of because they don't need to usually. That is something that goes person to person, place to place.

Second GW does an expert job of making rules that can vary widely from cut throat competitive to you'd only see them in a casual setting, like the most casual of casual. So they like to claim they are eyeing the casual side when they make it suck, but when its over the top ball busting they talk about how " Killer " it is and a great addition to any army !

They really talk out of both sides of their mouth but honestly like the saying sex sells, so does good rules. So they set sights for competitive and press the talk in that direction, unless its kinda meh then they remind us how casual 40k is supposed to be.

Casual doesn't sell burn and churn armies and books though, and FOTM armies do.

Deadnight wrote:
...More than anything though, rather than 'bans', (we're not talking about cancelling things out of the game! Everything g has it's place. Maybe not all the time under every circumstance, but certainly, where its appropriate...) I'd suggest accommodations and different approaches - essentislly 'list-matching' (note, not list tailoring, there is a difference!) rather rather than 'list-building-for-advantage. If you want to bring your souped up tourney list, or a skew list, it's fair game that the other guy knows so he can bring something thay can play on the same level. If he wants to bring his d-list, well, if he's willing to play at your level, be a decent chap and return the gesture.

Cool. Now what happens when you don't have the expertise to tell the difference between the A-list and the D-list? What happens when one newbie decides they want to play Primaris Marines and another decides they want to play CSM? Who's fault is it that someone bought an A-list Codex and someone else bought a D-list Codex?

If one person knowingly brings a WAAC tourney list against someone who has little to no clue what is competitive, that's not a game problem that's a person problem. If two brand new players are buying armies and one happens to have more good choices than the other then thats just bad luck. If they are friends, which the likely will be, then you'd hope they have a discussion about how to make things fun for both of them. I'd like to think that most people on here are adults and can have a conversation with another person, GW isn't your mum it's not their job to fix your problems. This game is social by nature and if you can't have a discussion with friends or regular opponents about making the game fair and fun then that is very much a you problem.

 Gert wrote:
If one person knowingly brings a WAAC tourney list against someone who has little to no clue what is competitive, that's not a game problem that's a person problem. If two brand new players are buying armies and one happens to have more good choices than the other then thats just bad luck. If they are friends, which the likely will be, then you'd hope they have a discussion about how to make things fun for both of them. I'd like to think that most people on here are adults and can have a conversation with another person, GW isn't your mum it's not their job to fix your problems. This game is social by nature and if you can't have a discussion with friends or regular opponents about making the game fair and fun then that is very much a you problem.

Human nature will always find ways to make itself evident. It's the rules fault for intentionally catering to game design that emphasizes list building, which will inevitability create a community that belittles people for not following the meta enough to be competitive in the standard way of playing.

Telling people not to take their own lovingly painted miniatures is not an acceptable answer here.

If I was bringing a list that won every single game I played and someone asked me to change it up to give them a chance, I would absolutely do so because fostering a friendly gaming environment is more important to me than winning. If this one guy has a good time then he might bring his friends next time which might lead to more people in a gaming group. The day I care more about winning than everyone involved having a good time is the day I stop doing Warhammer.
Literally the most important rule in Warhammer is "Have fun", if you have a way to make the game more fun for everyone involved that isn't explicitly written in a page in the rulebook then go ahead, you aren't going to be hung, drawn and quartered.

No game that requires reading several dozen pages of rules and investing hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours into choosing, buying, assembling, and painting models can be truly casual. Before you play your first game of 40k you're already invested in both a monetary and emotional sense simply due to the nature of the game. Thus when your favorite faction gets worse rules than another or suddenly becomes so strong you can't find a game, it's going to hurt at least a little.

This is the nature of the beast that is miniature wargaming and it's all there by design to keep you hooked and spending money.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
...More than anything though, rather than 'bans', (we're not talking about cancelling things out of the game! Everything g has it's place. Maybe not all the time under every circumstance, but certainly, where its appropriate...) I'd suggest accommodations and different approaches - essentislly 'list-matching' (note, not list tailoring, there is a difference!) rather rather than 'list-building-for-advantage. If you want to bring your souped up tourney list, or a skew list, it's fair game that the other guy knows so he can bring something thay can play on the same level. If he wants to bring his d-list, well, if he's willing to play at your level, be a decent chap and return the gesture.

Cool. Now what happens when you don't have the expertise to tell the difference between the A-list and the D-list?

Then you'll learn. Where do you think you get that xp from?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What happens when one newbie decides they want to play Primaris Marines and another decides they want to play CSM?

Ah, those poor hypothetical newbies....
Games will be played. What exactly the CSM newb brings will affect his odds of being stomped more so than his primaris counterpart..
Each will make some adjustments to thier lists & more games will be played.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Who's fault is it that someone bought an A-list Codex and someone else bought a D-list Codex?

The easy scapegoat is the evil/incomptent toy company who hasn't yet updated the D-list book. Not that it matters - as soon as they promote it to A status the peanut gallery will scream for it to be nerfed back to oblivion.....

Also obviously the player is at fault. This is 2021. Our hypothetical newb could have easily gone on-line & done his research before spending $$$.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Cool. Now what happens when you don't have the expertise to tell the difference between the A-list and the D-list? What happens when one newbie decides they want to play Primaris Marines and another decides they want to play CSM? Who's fault is it that someone bought an A-list Codex and someone else bought a D-list Codex?

Firstly, it's no one's 'fault'. Let's step away from this 'blame' culture.

Seckndly, what happens? Like in real life, if you make a mistake or a misjudgement, you learn from it and move on, and use it to inform your future game building. Surely those newbies should have researched first, or surely, we, as veterans of the hobby should offer a guiding hand to said newbies. They take a d grade list? Compliment them on their paint jobs, make them welcome, encourage them for the future, offer tips and guidance, play down your list to the level that they can take a few swings - hey, they're new, you really gonna be a seal clubber? And over time, you'll be their awesome guy who made them love their hobby. Or, you know. Crush them because you want a scalp.


If there's a mismatch, aim to improve. Folks like yourself who are into the competitive circuit will no doubt have zero issues with playing their tourney lists with the aim of both refining their lists and aiming to improve their abilities over time. I genuinly doubt you can out of a uterus as a fully formed and fully levelled up competitive player with an instinctive grasp of top table play. No you started somewhere, you learned, you proby made terrible lists and lost a lot, and over time, you got better. What makes you think alternative perspectives and approaches would be any different?

Personally I find games building and list matching to be a far more intriguing test of someone's skills than 'can they max out the mathematically best options in a codex'. Not that I'm dismissing the latter either.

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.

what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?

1000's of people worldwide enjoying this game is more proof than is needed to show your opinion that it's "trash" is worthless. Your specific gameplay may be terrible, but that goes against most of the population that continues to play 40K.

Thousands of people can enjoy trash just because of an absurd attachment to the IP.

Would you even seriously say that, if a new company released a game with the same exact rules, it would be well received? Absolutely not, they would be laughed at for thinking it was even close to being a finished ruleset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.

what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?

You didn't make any points. You whined about your army not being good enough. That's not what making a point is.

This applies to any army LOL. Also which one was my army again?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
No game that requires reading several dozen pages of rules and investing hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours into choosing, buying, assembling, and painting models can be truly casual. Before you play your first game of 40k you're already invested in both a monetary and emotional sense simply due to the nature of the game. Thus when your favorite faction gets worse rules than another or suddenly becomes so strong you can't find a game, it's going to hurt at least a little.

This is the nature of the beast that is miniature wargaming and it's all there by design to keep you hooked and spending money.

Thats not what people mean when they talk about being a casual player. Lying down and staring at the sky is casual in the sense that you aren't really doing anything, causal in terms of 40k means "not-competetive". I'm a casual wargame player but that doesn't mean I liked it when for two editions CSM were extremely annoying to play because their rules were pathetic and had maybe five units that were in any way competitive. I just changed my perspective from "am I going to win?" to "am I having a fun time". Warhammer is casual to me because there is nothing forcing me to do anything I don't want to. I don't have super restrictive criteria to meet or regulations to follow to have a good time. I can just plop some models on a table and roll some number cubes.

Deadnight wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.

As usual, missing the forest for the trees.

The rules are resolution methods, they dont define casual, competitive or narrative. Any rules set can be used for narrative gaming. Player attitude defines 'how' you play.

You mistake the fact that 40k is an admittedly poor ruleset and mistake that as 'proof' that jts no good for narrative..I wouldn't expect much more from a black Knight to be fair.

What makes a game narrative is the players imposing their imagination on the outcome of the dice, at its most fundamental level. At more advanced else, players will'gamebuild' and will construct a scenario (lists, mission objectives etc) that will allow a good narrative to play out.

The game as a narrative tool is not sunken cost. That's pure bitterness. The lore that 40k draws from, the epic world building and atmosphere is what makes it a narrative game. If you want it to be.

If you need to create your own scenarios or self imposed rules balances, you shouldn't pay for the bad rules to begin with. There's zero reason people should be defending one army's fluffy list is significantly worse than another army's, yet we have people doing it anyway.